Home Alone 2 star found guilty on all 34 counts in criminal case – politicalbetting.com

Financially, let's consider the impact of Trump's case.

It appears the maximum fine that can be imposed for this offence is $5000. Even assuming Trump is lying about his wealth (a very safe assumption) that's $170k. Still peanuts for him.

If he does appeal, he will have to post either a bond, or cash to stay collection. Unlike in his other cases, that shouldn't be hard.

He will of course have to pay some court expenses, but they won't be crazily high.

He will have more legal fees. He doesn't pay his lawyers, though, so that doesn't matter to him.

So unless he is imprisoned in some way this case is unlikely to have a major bearing on his finances or ability to campaign.

It is of course going to be a hard sell in swing states. 'Vote for me because Biden's senile even though I'm a convict' just isn't going to play well in Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or even parts of Texas.

Where it may matter more is if he doesn't pay his lawyers, will they keep working for him? The reason he has such a bunch of losers at the moment is he can't find anyone capable - they don't trust him to pay up - and if even they walk out on him could he find himself with no lawyer at all or a court appointed lawyer in his other cases?

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

In fact even taking account of the Prigozhin revolt there has been no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing.

eek said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

We are all still citizens of the continent of Europe.

Brexit didn't make the British, say, African....

Yet if it wasn't for the Channel I suspect Brexit wouldn't have got past 30% because the lack of a physical border would make the idea insane..

Scotland made it to 45% despite the lack of a physical border.

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Interesting. Whilst this would be fatal in the UK I'm not sure it will be in the US. Not many of us have a great record in US politics.

My sense is he's still nominated and runs but now struggles to win and definitely loses the popular vote, so have cashed out of that bet.

I have also put a saver on Trump junior and Haley at long odds for nominee - just in case.

Berlusconi is often a useful precedent for how countries deal with populist political rogues and he managed to shrug off multiple convictions through his career.

Trump shows how far utter unalloyed confidence and narcissistic charisma can take a politician where others would have long ago slumped into obscurity and disgrace.

That's Italy.

This is the US. So we can't project wishful thinking.

I’m not sure Trump being able to shrug off convictions Berlusconi style is wishful thinking, unless you’re a Trumper.

I think it’s instructive. See also Netanyahu in Israel.

ydoethur said:

It is of course going to be a hard sell in swing states. 'Vote for me because Biden's senile even though I'm a convict' just isn't going to play well in Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or even parts of Texas.

The argument will be to vote for Trump because he's tougher overseas - compared to Biden's weakness with the chaotic fall of Kabul and 27-month war in Ukraine - and because he'll protect the voters from victimisation by a Democrat-controlled legal system. After all, if the Democrats are allowed to get away with using the courts to persecute Trump, then they'll be coming for all right-thinking (white) Americans.

Trump managed to change political reality over his election defeat, and he can twist this conviction to his advantage too.

.

darkage said:

bondegezou said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

The logic there doesn’t work. The economic disruption would’ve happened even if the West had given Ukraine more support. The inflationary shock was unavoidable.

It just depends. If the war in Ukraine was 'won' 2 years ago with proper military support then why would it inevitably lead to economic disruption? Also if the west stuck with its original plan of abandoning Ukraine then surely there would not have been this economic disruption?

I think the real problem is that there are probably limits connected to geopolitical realities as to how much support the west can actually give Ukraine.

I don't see the forthcoming flawed 'Trump deal' as being an inevitable disaster, given where we are.

The war would’ve taken time to win, even if it could have been won 2 years ago, so there still would have been disruption to energy supplies, and thus inflation. Would the defeated Russia still be under sanctions? More disruption.

What stopped Russia’s quick victory was Ukraine. A change in Western support in those opening weeks wouldn’t have changed that. Again, we still have a period of war and economic disruption.

Maybe the economic disruption wouldn’t have been as large, but Russia invading a neighbouring country who could resist was always going to be inflationary.

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.

The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.

Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)

IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.

I think people in the West - commentators, politicians, journalists, PB, me - have oscillated between overestimating Russian capability, and underestimating it. Right now I think they’re overestimating Russia, in late 2022 and all of 2023 they were underestimating it, at the start of the invasion they were overestimating and so on.

Common tendency, we see it also in sport and politics.

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.

The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.

Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)

IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.

I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.

And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.

I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.

* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.

Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.

Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.

Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.

Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.

Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Interesting. Whilst this would be fatal in the UK I'm not sure it will be in the US. Not many of us have a great record in US politics.

My sense is he's still nominated and runs but now struggles to win and definitely loses the popular vote, so have cashed out of that bet.

I have also put a saver on Trump junior and Haley at long odds for nominee - just in case.

Berlusconi is often a useful precedent for how countries deal with populist political rogues and he managed to shrug off multiple convictions through his career.

Trump shows how far utter unalloyed confidence and narcissistic charisma can take a politician where others would have long ago slumped into obscurity and disgrace.

That's Italy.

This is the US. So we can't project wishful thinking.

I’m not sure Trump being able to shrug off convictions Berlusconi style is wishful thinking, unless you’re a Trumper.

I think it’s instructive. See also Netanyahu in Israel.

You are coded as a centrist Dad, so of course Casino thought your post was wishful thinking.

Why would a centrist dad be wishfully thinking about Trump’s success?

Taz said:

Starmer is Purging women of colour. Claims the Tribune.

I think this is not the route to go down, he is purging people of the hard left. I doubt Shaheens colour comes into it.

I also suspect this may not harm Starmer

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/starmer-is-purging-women-of-colour/ar-BB1nl8PB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9bbcdca7a5f54258813550912d9d31fe&ei=22

Others are saying he’s purging minorities as that also includes Lloyd Russell Moyle.

I think it’ll harm him a bit. Not because he’s purging the left, but because Labour are all over the news looking disunited. There’s a risk it does the opposite of what’s intended: reminds voters that the loony left still exist in Labour. He needs the news cycle to move on (thank you DJT).

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

I’m more surprised it’s not yet happened in the Baltics. There have been plenty of other asymmetric attacks there in the last few years.

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

A decentralised grid is the future I think. It would have helped Ukraine hugely in the last couple of winters. More of a mesh than a nodal grid.

ydoethur said:

TimS said:

Taz said:

Starmer is Purging women of colour. Claims the Tribune.

I think this is not the route to go down, he is purging people of the hard left. I doubt Shaheens colour comes into it.

I also suspect this may not harm Starmer

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/starmer-is-purging-women-of-colour/ar-BB1nl8PB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9bbcdca7a5f54258813550912d9d31fe&ei=22

Others are saying he’s purging minorities as that also includes Lloyd Russell Moyle.

I think it’ll harm him a bit. Not because he’s purging the left, but because Labour are all over the news looking disunited. There’s a risk it does the opposite of what’s intended: reminds voters that the loony left still exist in Labour. He needs the news cycle to move on (thank you DJT).

Paula Vennells still can't quite believe her luck.

Vennells has now retired from public life so, unless prosecuted, she could ride out the media for however long it took. Luckily for her it took less than 48 hours but the CPS isn’t as beholden to the news cycle as voters. Or PB.

megasaur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

We are all still citizens of the continent of Europe.

Brexit didn't make the British, say, African....

I'm not, I live on an island off the coast of Europe.

If you think plate tectonics alters the fact you presumably think the Spanish are Africans?

You are on the same tectonic plate as the rest of Europe; the Eurasian plate. Geology trumps Oceanography.

The Israeli parliament has given preliminary approval to a proposed law that would class the UNRWA as a terrorist organisation. The effect would be to shut down its operations on all land that's either governed by Israel or currently under attack by the Israeli military, criminalising all UNRWA staff and every person who is in contact with the organisation. The exception would be foreign diplomats with diplomatic status, but we'll see how long that lasts. It may not be so easy to issue Wallenberg passports, but good luck to any country that tries.

Meanwhile there have been no reports of any arrests relating to the arson attack on the UNRWA HQ in Jerusalem by an armed mob three weeks ago. What a surprise.

About 200 UNRWA staff have been killed by the Israelis in Gaza since October 2023.

Meanwhile Israel is bombing Lebanon and has seized the Philadelphi corridor facing Egypt. At the Rafah crossing it has killed Egyptian soldiers. Its forces are moving further into Rafah from which it has already displaced the large majority of the (mostly already displaced) population, and it continues to bomb refugee camps from the air, north and south. Nice guys.

"Finish them", writes a dementedly bloodthirsty Nikki Haley, former US ambassador to the UN, on an Israeli artillery shell.

The point of the UN is what exactly?

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

It took the IRA a decade of operating before it developed a cell structure do half of what you’re suggesting effectively. I don’t think Just Stop Oil or BLM, if they are the type of groups
you imply, have anything like that kind of motivation or nous. And they like social media too much. Maybe you refer to another group?

guybrush said:

Taz said:

Starmer is Purging women of colour. Claims the Tribune.

I think this is not the route to go down, he is purging people of the hard left. I doubt Shaheens colour comes into it.

I also suspect this may not harm Starmer

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/starmer-is-purging-women-of-colour/ar-BB1nl8PB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9bbcdca7a5f54258813550912d9d31fe&ei=22

Yes, taking on the hard left isn't a bad look for swing voters. Well done Kier.

It won’t make much difference either way. People have already made up their minds and just want to vote the Tories out ASAP.

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

It took the IRA a decade of operating before it developed a cell structure do half of what you’re suggesting effectively. I don’t think Just Stop Oil or BLM, if they are the type of groups
you imply, have anything like that kind of motivation or nous. And they like social media too much. Maybe you refer to another group?

The Conservative Party?

That would make a great movie.

Jamarion said:

The Israeli parliament has given preliminary approval to a proposed law that would class the UNRWA as a terrorist organisation. The effect would be to shut down its operations on all land that's either governed by Israel or currently under attack by the Israeli military, criminalising all UNRWA staff and every person who is in contact with the organisation. The exception would be foreign diplomats with diplomatic status, but we'll see how long that lasts. It may not be so easy to issue Wallenberg passports, but good luck to any country that tries.

Meanwhile there have been no reports of any arrests relating to the arson attack on the UNRWA HQ in Jerusalem by an armed mob three weeks ago. What a surprise.

About 200 UNRWA staff have been killed by the Israelis in Gaza since October 2023.

Meanwhile Israel is bombing Lebanon and has seized the Philadelphi corridor facing Egypt. At the Rafah crossing it has killed Egyptian soldiers. Its forces are moving further into Rafah from which it has already displaced the large majority of the (mostly already displaced) population, and it continues to bomb refugee camps from the air, north and south. Nice guys.

"Finish them", writes a dementedly bloodthirsty Nikki Haley, former US ambassador to the UN, on an Israeli artillery shell.

The point of the UN is what exactly?

The UNRWA are at the very least extremely useful idiots for Hamas, and at the very least large scale collusion between Hamas and themselves was occurring - this is one of the very few reasonable and fully justifiable things the Israeli government has done!

Completely off topic but related to comments about Vincent Kompany on here…I think the former Burnley and new Bayern manager might have kept us (Ipswich) our manager. McKenna could well have seen how Kompany went to Munich despite getting relegated, making staying at Ipswich (we all know next season will be tough) less risky.

Anyway, as you were, I’ve no where else to post my early morning thoughts since the wife took up CrossFit.

TimS said:

I love the last sentence from this ITV tweet on Davey’s water slide antics

https://x.com/itvwestcountry/status/1796110905928794601?s=46

“He’s just been told he’s not allowed any more goes”.

The Lib Dems have so far had the best campaign. They've managed to get noticed, which has seemed unlikely, and Davey has done a pretty good job of leveraging attention from his stunts into opportunities to talk about policies (such as mental health support for children in schools).

wooliedyed said:

🚨NEW Scottish Westminster VI for @TheScotsman

📈First Savanta poll since GE announcement shows Labour lead over the SNP remaining static.

🌹LAB 37% (=)
🎗️SNP 33% (=)
🌳CON 17% (=)
🔶LD 7% (=)
⬜️Other 5% (-1)

1,067 Scottish adults, 24-28 May

NOTHING HAS CHANGED

Just imagine paying £10ks for that survey and getting the same result as last time.

eek said:

MattW said:

Using my daily quote for this one, because I think it is important.

David Langdon Cole is one of the good guys - civilised and thoughtful. Town Councillor in Huntington.

I'm frankly astonished that @NALC's latest Good Councillor Guide says that councillors shouldn't criticise council decisions on social media. This is a gag on local democracy.

https://x.com/dlandoncole/status/1796144505965420778

I can see the issue they - it's collective responsibility and criticising something on social media is going to come back and bite you in a way that doing it in person or in next week's chip wrappings didn't used to....

The problem comes from the fact the internet never forgets....

Collective responsibility only applies to those in a Cabinet etc who make a decision privately.

Those who vote against the decision publicly, it doesn't apply to, and free speech applies instead.

TimS said:

ydoethur said:

TimS said:

Taz said:

Starmer is Purging women of colour. Claims the Tribune.

I think this is not the route to go down, he is purging people of the hard left. I doubt Shaheens colour comes into it.

I also suspect this may not harm Starmer

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/starmer-is-purging-women-of-colour/ar-BB1nl8PB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9bbcdca7a5f54258813550912d9d31fe&ei=22

Others are saying he’s purging minorities as that also includes Lloyd Russell Moyle.

I think it’ll harm him a bit. Not because he’s purging the left, but because Labour are all over the news looking disunited. There’s a risk it does the opposite of what’s intended: reminds voters that the loony left still exist in Labour. He needs the news cycle to move on (thank you DJT).

Paula Vennells still can't quite believe her luck.

Not even the most famous crying person this month anymore.

Did Donald burst into tears?

megasaur said:

Fairliered said:

megasaur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

We are all still citizens of the continent of Europe.

Brexit didn't make the British, say, African....

I'm not, I live on an island off the coast of Europe.

If you think plate tectonics alters the fact you presumably think the Spanish are Africans?

You are on the same tectonic plate as the rest of Europe; the Eurasian plate. Geology trumps Oceanography.

There's no reason why that should be so. If people think it does I think that's largely because they think tectonics is about continents because of Wegener's initial stab at the question. Big continents and small islands remains a useful distinction. We didn't rebadge humans as apes after Darwin.

The reasons we are European are geographical, ecological, historical, cultural. We are part of the same biome with the same plant and animal species, we share each others air pollution, the same frontal systems at the same time, our royal family is part of the same lineage as half the royal families of Europe, we speak a European language, we’re part of the European transport system, integrated gas and electricity networks, petrochemical and automotive industries, people smuggling networks, the FLAP-D telecom grid, and so on.

Much more part of Europe than, say, Taiwan or Japan are part of Asia in fact.

Benpointer said:

TimS said:

ydoethur said:

TimS said:

Taz said:

Starmer is Purging women of colour. Claims the Tribune.

I think this is not the route to go down, he is purging people of the hard left. I doubt Shaheens colour comes into it.

I also suspect this may not harm Starmer

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/starmer-is-purging-women-of-colour/ar-BB1nl8PB?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9bbcdca7a5f54258813550912d9d31fe&ei=22

Others are saying he’s purging minorities as that also includes Lloyd Russell Moyle.

I think it’ll harm him a bit. Not because he’s purging the left, but because Labour are all over the news looking disunited. There’s a risk it does the opposite of what’s intended: reminds voters that the loony left still exist in Labour. He needs the news cycle to move on (thank you DJT).

Paula Vennells still can't quite believe her luck.

Not even the most famous crying person this month anymore.

Did Donald burst into tears?

He was too busy falling asleep.

#sleepyDon #lyingDon #loserDon

Benpointer said:

wooliedyed said:

🚨NEW Scottish Westminster VI for @TheScotsman

📈First Savanta poll since GE announcement shows Labour lead over the SNP remaining static.

🌹LAB 37% (=)
🎗️SNP 33% (=)
🌳CON 17% (=)
🔶LD 7% (=)
⬜️Other 5% (-1)

1,067 Scottish adults, 24-28 May

NOTHING HAS CHANGED

Just imagine paying £10ks for that survey and getting the same result as last time.

Savanta - you did say to ask the same respondents, right?

TimS said:

megasaur said:

Fairliered said:

megasaur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

We are all still citizens of the continent of Europe.

Brexit didn't make the British, say, African....

I'm not, I live on an island off the coast of Europe.

If you think plate tectonics alters the fact you presumably think the Spanish are Africans?

You are on the same tectonic plate as the rest of Europe; the Eurasian plate. Geology trumps Oceanography.

There's no reason why that should be so. If people think it does I think that's largely because they think tectonics is about continents because of Wegener's initial stab at the question. Big continents and small islands remains a useful distinction. We didn't rebadge humans as apes after Darwin.

The reasons we are European are geographical, ecological, historical, cultural. We are part of the same biome with the same plant and animal species, we share each others air pollution, the same frontal systems at the same time, our royal family is part of the same lineage as half the royal families of Europe, we speak a European language, we’re part of the European transport system, integrated gas and electricity networks, petrochemical and automotive industries, people smuggling networks, the FLAP-D telecom grid, and so on.

Much more part of Europe than, say, Taiwan or Japan are part of Asia in fact.

This is like having to explain to people that the Earth is not flat. You have to wonder if it's really worth the effort.

Farooq said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

I love the last sentence from this ITV tweet on Davey’s water slide antics

https://x.com/itvwestcountry/status/1796110905928794601?s=46

“He’s just been told he’s not allowed any more goes”.

The Lib Dems have so far had the best campaign. They've managed to get noticed, which has seemed unlikely, and Davey has done a pretty good job of leveraging attention from his stunts into opportunities to talk about policies (such as mental health support for children in schools).

Yes and no... they've come across as a novelty act thanks to Davey's antics. A sort of middle-England Count Binface, who also has some thought-provoking policy ideas.
Davey's operating in a confined space, electorally, so I'm not sure what he can do that's better. But I don't think it's going to lead to a major breakthrough. Good chance they get a lower % than last time.

I think Cooper might have cut through better. She has a no nonsenseness about her that would land well in the right places. And as a woman, would make a nice contrast with the others.

Donald Trump’s biggest mistake was receiving only 34 charges. 81 more and he might’ve stood a chance.

https://x.com/paddypower/status/1796300153361666055

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

Utter rubbish. What else would we be?

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Voters like Tories’ policies — but Labour still well ahead in poll

Pledges on national service and cutting tax for pensioners have gone down well, but Rishi Sunak is struggling to convince voters

The Tories are struggling to convert popular policy pledges into increased support, as Labour maintains its commanding lead over the Conservatives in the polls.

The latest YouGov survey of voting intention for The Times shows the Tories are still trailing Labour by 25 points, a week into the campaign.

This is despite significant backing for Conservative plans to provide a tax cut for pensioners, scrap so-called “Mickey Mouse” degrees, and to bring in national service for 18-year-olds.

Overall YouGov found that just 6 per cent of voters had a better view of the Conservative party as a result of what they had seen and heard during the campaign so far, while 18 per cent had a worse view.

In contrast Labour, which has made no significant policy announcements, did better. YouGov found that 12 per cent of voters said they had a better view of Labour than they had at the start of the campaign while 10 per cent had a worse view.

Overall the Conservatives are up one point on 21 per cent, Labour are down one point on 46 per cent while support for Reform UK has increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are down one point on 8 per cent.

The Tories’ low ratings came despite the poll finding that showed Rishi Sunak’s policy blitz had been largely popular with voters.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-like-tories-policies-but-labour-still-well-ahead-in-poll-skt299gb7

Reform on 15% my arse.

YouGov consistently overcook turnout, Labour and Reform, and undercook the Tories and the LDs. They need to review their panel.

Look how far out they were in the mayoral and locals.

Slight problem with the claim they undercook the Tories in the mayoral elections.

Yougov said Andy Street would win with 41% of the vote, he lost with 37.5%

In fact if you look at YouGov's report it seemed they continually over estimated Tory support

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49372-yougov-at-the-2024-local-and-mayoral-elections

Thanks for that. Quite remarkable how close they were under all the various circumstances.

I think the time has come to call this a landslide for Labour.

LostPassword said:

MarqueeMark said:

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.

The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.

Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)

IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.

I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.

And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.

I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.

* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.

Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.

Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.

Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.

Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.

Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.

Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.

But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.

One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.

Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.

I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.

Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?

More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.

I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).


For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.

TimS said:

megasaur said:

Fairliered said:

megasaur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

We are all still citizens of the continent of Europe.

Brexit didn't make the British, say, African....

I'm not, I live on an island off the coast of Europe.

If you think plate tectonics alters the fact you presumably think the Spanish are Africans?

You are on the same tectonic plate as the rest of Europe; the Eurasian plate. Geology trumps Oceanography.

There's no reason why that should be so. If people think it does I think that's largely because they think tectonics is about continents because of Wegener's initial stab at the question. Big continents and small islands remains a useful distinction. We didn't rebadge humans as apes after Darwin.

The reasons we are European are geographical, ecological, historical, cultural. We are part of the same biome with the same plant and animal species, we share each others air pollution, the same frontal systems at the same time, our royal family is part of the same lineage as half the royal families of Europe, we speak a European language, we’re part of the European transport system, integrated gas and electricity networks, petrochemical and automotive industries, people smuggling networks, the FLAP-D telecom grid, and so on.

Much more part of Europe than, say, Taiwan or Japan are part of Asia in fact.

If you want to go off culture, royal family, language etc then we share far more in common with many of our fellow Commonwealth nations that speak the English language and have the same monarch as we do than we do the diverse nations of Europe that speak other languages etc

Under your logic Australia is also European. It is in Eurovision I suppose.

DougSeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

Utter rubbish. What else would we be?

British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.

They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.

Yay, the search function is working again.

TimS said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

A decentralised grid is the future I think. It would have helped Ukraine hugely in the last couple of winters. More of a mesh than a nodal grid.

As I've said passim, IMV this is almost certain to happen with the increasingly decentralised generation as well (wind, solar etc).

JosiasJessop said:

DougSeal said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

It took the IRA a decade of operating before it developed a cell structure do half of what you’re suggesting effectively. I don’t think Just Stop Oil or BLM, if they are the type of groups
you imply, have anything like that kind of motivation or nous. And they like social media too much. Maybe you refer to another group?

Activist loons have already taken to cutting the Internet cables to arms manufacturers. Note the target: f'all to do with Israel itself, but something that is quite useful to Russia if it interferes with out military capabilities.

And before someone screeches: "You hate Russia!", well I don't like fascists. And there's lots of evidence that Russia is using various means to attack the west: from refugees to incentivising criminal gangs for attacks of varying kinds. This kind of action is very useful to Putin and Russia.

People who interfere with the lawful conducting of business, especially that business which might pertain to our defence capabilities, should have the book thrown at them.

Luckyguy1983 said:

DougSeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

Utter rubbish. What else would we be?

British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.

They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.

4?

They're not American, they're Canadian.
We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc

Taz said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-logo-great-british-energy-32925798

What a crap logo

That bears a distinct resemblance to ... sorry ... The Funky Gibbon.

https://youtu.be/iAmx_XdQky8?t=47

But it's better than Consignia's "down the plughole" logo.

https://worldvectorlogo.com/logo/consignia

"The new name for the Post Office Group"

LostPassword said:

The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.

I don't think it's failed yet and those are not the reasons. Nobody who knows anything about it in the upper reaches of the DoD, Pentagon, MoD, etc. would have doubted the Russian resolve and capacity to keep fighting in the face of losses that would have cause any Western government to throw the towel in.

Part of the problem is that gullible ultras have swallowed and then faithfully regurgitated Ukrainian lies about Russian losses. So the answer to how can Russia keep taking this number of casualties is that they are probably not.

The other issue is that Biden, and to the very minor extent that it matters, the other Western leaders have never articulated any sort of definitive goal for their involvement in the SMO. There is no strategy beyond keeping Ukraine in the fight until next weekend.

However, Ukraine are (just) still in there swinging, so it's not over yet.

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

MattW said:

Using my daily quote for this one, because I think it is important.

David Langdon Cole is one of the good guys - civilised and thoughtful. Town Councillor in Huntington.

I'm frankly astonished that @NALC's latest Good Councillor Guide says that councillors shouldn't criticise council decisions on social media. This is a gag on local democracy.

https://x.com/dlandoncole/status/1796144505965420778

I can see the issue they - it's collective responsibility and criticising something on social media is going to come back and bite you in a way that doing it in person or in next week's chip wrappings didn't used to....

The problem comes from the fact the internet never forgets....

Collective responsibility only applies to those in a Cabinet etc who make a decision privately.

Those who vote against the decision publicly, it doesn't apply to, and free speech applies instead.

The issue, legally, is that local authorities are legal bodies in their own right but they are made up of councillors. Unlike shareholders in limited companies, or MPs in Parliament, councillors CAN be held liable for the decisions of the council (surcharges and the like) where it acts unlawfully. Pissing about on social media can adversely impact the legal position of both the councillor and the council. Local authorities are more akin to an unincorporated partnership in that respect.

That’s not to say that they shouldn’t have the right to piss about on social media, but the legal status of local government makes the dangers of doing so different to an MP doing so. Maybe the law should be changed to limit the liability of councillors but, as it stands, it isn’t a great idea.

If the Council is doing the wrong thing, and you voted against it, then "pissing about on social media" sounds like the right thing to do then.

The idea that you're doing the wrong thing, but should keep quiet lest it hurt you legally, is Post Office style thinking.

JosiasJessop said:

DougSeal said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

It took the IRA a decade of operating before it developed a cell structure do half of what you’re suggesting effectively. I don’t think Just Stop Oil or BLM, if they are the type of groups
you imply, have anything like that kind of motivation or nous. And they like social media too much. Maybe you refer to another group?

Activist loons have already taken to cutting the Internet cables to arms manufacturers. Note the target: f'all to do with Israel itself, but something that is quite useful to Russia if it interferes with out military capabilities.

And before someone screeches: "You hate Russia!", well I don't like fascists. And there's lots of evidence that Russia is using various means to attack the west: from refugees to incentivising criminal gangs for attacks of varying kinds. This kind of action is very useful to Putin and Russia.

I don’t think you hate Russia. It’s your dislike of domestic pressure groups who don’t share your opinions I’m concerned about. And for the avoidance of doubt I think that linking them to offensive action by Russia is loony tunes stuff.

MattW said:

Using my daily quote for this one, because I think it is important.

David Langdon Cole is one of the good guys - civilised and thoughtful. Town Councillor in Huntington.

I'm frankly astonished that @NALC's latest Good Councillor Guide says that councillors shouldn't criticise council decisions on social media. This is a gag on local democracy.

https://x.com/dlandoncole/status/1796144505965420778

That’s preposterous, and as such entirely on brand for NALC.

But it’s not a gag because they have no statutory powers, thank goodness.

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

DougSeal said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

It took the IRA a decade of operating before it developed a cell structure do half of what you’re suggesting effectively. I don’t think Just Stop Oil or BLM, if they are the type of groups
you imply, have anything like that kind of motivation or nous. And they like social media too much. Maybe you refer to another group?

Activist loons have already taken to cutting the Internet cables to arms manufacturers. Note the target: f'all to do with Israel itself, but something that is quite useful to Russia if it interferes with out military capabilities.

And before someone screeches: "You hate Russia!", well I don't like fascists. And there's lots of evidence that Russia is using various means to attack the west: from refugees to incentivising criminal gangs for attacks of varying kinds. This kind of action is very useful to Putin and Russia.

People who interfere with the lawful conducting of business, especially that business which might pertain to our defence capabilities, should have the book thrown at them.

Indeed.

As Trump just has.

*grabs tinfoil hat and - TAKES COVER*

DavidL said:

LostPassword said:

MarqueeMark said:

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

I don't think that the strategy in Ukraine has been to avoid a Ukrainian victory. I think the strategy has been to provide the minimum necessary support to Ukraine to convince Russia to call it quits, by imposing a heavy cost.

The strategy has failed because of a consistent underestimation of Russian resolve to keep fighting, despite heavy losses and minimal gains, and an underestimation of Russian ability to increase military production despite sanctions.

Russia has increased military production; but apparently not as much as you might think. A large amount of their capability is coming from Iran, North Korea and, in component form, other countries (and in dual-use form, even western countries...)

IMV the question is whether these supplies from Iran and NK are a stopgap temporary measure until Russian industry can build itself up; or whether they will become a permanent backbone of the Russian war effort. Either way, it's massively costly for the Russian economy in the short, medium and long terms.

I've heard that China are supplying Russia with the machine tools necessary for further expansion of Russian military production. I think the key point is that there's been an expectation that the Russian war effort will reach a point of collapse, because they will exhaust their ability to supply it. People have talked about a critical shortage of ball bearings, poor quality tyres, and numerous other points of failure. The appearance of antiquated Russian tanks, like the T-62*, on the front line, was taken as an indication that Russian military stockpiles were nearing exhaustion.

And yet, in the first half of this year, it was the Ukrainian war effort that nearly collapsed, because of a six-month gap in US supplies that the Europeans were not able to make good.

I believe that Ukraine can still win this war, but it's only going to be able to do so if the West provides it with the necessary finances, equipment and training, at a sufficient scale, to be able to destroy Russian supplies and equipment away from the front line. Progress is being made - we have the recent announcement that Ukraine can use US weapons to target Russian forces in Russia that are part of the Kharkiv offensive - but it's so frustratingly slow.

* I haven't seen one of these being destroyed for a long time now. Quite a few T-90s being lost, suggesting that their production still continues unhindered by sanctions.

Those are T-90s that were supposed to be exported.

Russia might be building up production, but it is to go to Ukraine - to be destroyed shortly thereafter. It's export business has collapsed - partly because delivery dates are uncertain and unmet, but also because their goods are shoddy.

Russia has now lost over 80% of its artillery capacity. It has lost 75% of its ability to move troop to battle in armour. Instead, it has been using unarmoured vehicles little better than golf buggies and quad bikes. With the obvious outcome, now that Ukraine again has adequate numbers of cluster munitions.

Russia has been suffering immense losses of men and material, to take what? Flattened villages of no economic value, heavily mined farmland, forest strips denuded of trees. In return for that thin strip of land, its oil facilities in Russia are burning, its markets abroad either gone or subject to vicious price gouging from those who will still trade. A "win" for Russia where Ukraine is no longer a functioning economic state is some way off, whilst the domestic Russian marquee brands are reporting massive losses now.

Russia cannot contemplate losing, so it pushes ahead with a military adventure that was doomed on day four of the three day timeline. Its opponents can use this bull-headed stupidity, knowing it will continue to use up its weaponry until it has only sticks, stones and nukes. Russia is demilitarising itself on the alter of Putin's hatred of Ukraine. And because anybody that stands up to him dies.

Yes, the war is a disaster for Russia.

But it could still end up being worse for Ukraine. It's future as an independent country is still on the line, and I have two major doubts about the future of the war.

One, I do not think that Europe can provide enough support to Ukraine to prevent their defeat without the US.

Two, I fear that Biden is heading for defeat and that Trump will abandon Ukraine.

I heard a slightly more rational analysis (of the republican position, not you) on the Briefing Room on R4 yesterday.

Some Republicans are concerned about the blank cheque problem. Are they committed to support Ukraine no matter how much?

More, however, and it was suggested that this included Trump, are concerned about the clear path to victory problem. What does victory look like? How can Ukraine, for all its bravery, defeat a country the size of Russia? It was being suggested by some Republicans that if Trump did see a way to victory he would be on board and want to claim that victory but he is not willing to invest open ended sums into a bloody stalemate.

I don't agree with this analysis but it does make more sense than the way the Republican position is all too often portrayed in this country (servants of Putin, corrupt etc).

For me, victory for Ukraine will be either from the collapse of the kleptocracy that controls Russia (like the end of Russia's engagement in WW1) or by driving Russian forces back out of Ukrainian territory. Both are difficult and have been made more so by the parsimonious response of European countries in particular in both the speed and scale of support. We really need to step up our game and stop moaning that the US is not doing enough when it is doing so much more than everyone else.

That ignores the Afghan and Vietnam lessons. The North Vietnamese did not drive the American forces out of Vietnam: instead, they made the war far too costly for it to be continued.

The same thing happened in the 1980s with Afghanistan. The Russians were not militarily defeated per se; but the occupation was made not worth the bother. And the same thing happened three decades later with the Americans in the same country.

The questions are if, and at what point, Russia decides the war is not worth the pain it is causing to itself (and that pain is, after only two years, far greater than any of the wars I mentioned above). This has been made more complex by the fact they've claimed large swathes of Ukraine as *their* territory - something that was never done in those other wars.

*If* Russia was to 'win', then I expect a massive depopulation of Ukrainians from Ukrainian territory, as Russia attempts to stop the population fighting them in an insurgency. That's something the appeasers (not you) never mention. It's not as if Russia is not already doing it in the areas they control...

DougSeal said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

darkage said:

rcs1000 said:

So...

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the Trump prosecution in this case was "political". The issue I have, though, is that the US legal system is setup to be political.

If you want to get elected District Attorney, you need to take on - and win - cases that your constituents care about.

In New York, that means taking on Trump.

Of course, this is all possible because the Former President has - let's be honest here - committed a litany of crimes. Is the documents case bullshit? Yes, but he did actually committed the crimes. He did falsify business records.

And I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Presidents should be immune from prosecution because... well... they were President. Nobody should be above the law.

Like @Leon, I believe this boosts Trump's chances of being reelected. I think the increase in turnout in Trump base will outweigh any (minimal) effects on independents.

Ultimately, Biden will (probably) lose for the same reason every incumbent is losing right now: wages have not risen as fast as prices. And they haven't risen as fast as prices because of the impact of the Ukraine war on global commodity prices.

Trump won't solve this. In fact, he'll probably make it worse by adding tariffs. And I suspect the Ukrainians will be forced to cede half their country by "realist" Trump, at least until the Putin regime collapses.

I'm pretty depressed, therefore, about the world. Four more years of Trump. Four more years of increasing political polarization. It's pretty shit.

I think that the underlying conclusion from the analysis above must be that the policy on Ukraine has been a failure. There has been a strategy to partially back a participant in an war - just not to the level in which it can win. But this is alongside the rhetoric and belief that the war in question is an existential struggle. This has had the consequence of global economic and political disruption which is now probably going to lead to the election of an adversary who will back down on the existential struggle causing massive humiliation and embarrassment. The situation has nonetheless had nightmarish and existential consequences in the evolution of warfare, in any event.

Or probably not ?

You're quite right about the cost of delay and lack of commitment in western aid to Ukraine, though.
It would likely have been far cheaper in both lives and resources had we sent more kit much earlier.

It would.

In defence of our governments though, the general (no pun intended) view was that with or without our help the Ukrainians would be unable to hold off the Russians for more than a few days at the outside. And that held good in the corridors of power just as much as it did posters on here (myself included).

Nobody (or at least very few people) I think really understood both how far the Ukrainians had come militarily, how inspiring Zelensky would prove as a leader and above all just what a dreadful state the Russian army was in and how unprepared it was for actual fighting.

Only when that became clearer did massive aid to Ukraine suddenly become a more practical proposition.

Who could forget perhaps the defining moment of the early stage - the Ukrainians turning back the Russian advance on Kyiv? The US were so sure it couldn't be stopped they offered to fly Zelensky to safety. His response 'I need ammunition, not a ride' defined the next phase of the war.

I think that is correct but it serves to demonstrate a point that I was making. That Russia was not objectively any threat to the west at the beginning. However it is now because of the course of this war and how it has adapted.

It's not a realistic threat to the West. As soon as Western arms came back on stream for Ukraine the Russians started struggling again. It can cause problems in other ways but if it can't get past Ukraine it's not going to have much luck against Poland. This is why Putin's put so much effort into buying members of the Republican Party.

What is more worrying is that aside from Prigozhin's little escapade there's no sign of the kleptocracy collapsing. Which all other considerations aside is needed for the sake of the Russian people.

I think Russia could destroy the British electricity grid surprisingly quickly if they wanted to. It would create absolute chaos within Britain. The state of British air defences is pretty lacking.

You could do this really easily without any need for attack from the air. Sabotage at critical points in our energy infrastructure would be really, really easy.

It would also be an act of war.

I would not be surprised if some 'activist' groups start doing this. Of course, with no Russian help...

It took the IRA a decade of operating before it developed a cell structure do half of what you’re suggesting effectively. I don’t think Just Stop Oil or BLM, if they are the type of groups
you imply, have anything like that kind of motivation or nous. And they like social media too much. Maybe you refer to another group?

There is, thankfully, an enormous gap between what a few individuals *can* do and what actually happens.

People want to believe that only a nation state can do “X”. I’ve pointed out a few times that NordStream could have easily been done by a small club of divers - think the level of the guys who pulled Bluebird out of the lake.

Once you’ve studied chemistry to a certain level, you know that there is nothing really between us as some horrors.

As to the grid and telecommunications? There’s tons of ways that a single individual could cause havoc.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

Listening to Labour ruling out tax increases it is becoming very obvious that they are seeking the private sector to invest many billions in an attempt to increase growth to pay for all the goodies

This is straight out of the Gordon Brown playbook and disastrous PFI scandal or am I wrong ?

I’ll take Gordon Brown over Osbourne, Kwarteng and Hunt any day of the week.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DougSeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Interesting suggestion that what wiped out the Neanderthals was a lack of immunity to infections brought by migrating Homo sapiens.
(Probably not the herpes, though.)

Scientists have discovered a 50,000-year-old herpes virus – and perhaps how modern humans came to rule the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/30/50000-year-old-herpes-virus-humans-dna-homo-sapiens-neanderthals

I think they flatter themselves. The Neanderthals are still out there and some are quite prominent.

Why, only yesterday one of them was convicted of falsifying business records.

Most Europeans are as Neanderthal as Donald Trump. Discuss.

Well d'uh. Why do you think we voted for Brexit?

People who voted for Brexit won't thank you for calling them Europeans.

Utter rubbish. What else would we be?

British/English - similar to Canadians not being American despite being in the relevant continent.

They are American. There are four continents. We're all part of one of them.

4?

They're not American, they're Canadian.
We're not European, we're British/English/Scottish etc

Still half asleep sorry, 6.

But as it pertains to continents, the Canadians are American, and we are European. It's just geography. Every landmass is part of one of them, Europe is our one.

They may be on the continent of America but American refers to citizenship of the country called America.

We don't have European citizenship post Brexit, whether you like it or not.

Yuge-if-true breaking news on PB

Britain no longer part of Europe
Japan no longer part of Asia
Madagascar no longer part of Africa
Islas Malvinas… hang on