Certainly rebuilding schemes should aim to balance the old and new. The Coventry rebuild did all the latter but not the former whereas the Notre Dame rebuild shows what can be done.
In the hybrid working era new residential accommodation is probably just as important as new office accommodation
An intriguing post. Another example of a city wrecked by urban planning could include Gloucester, where several fine medieval and Georgian buildings were demolished to be replaced by concrete disasters (now useless) when Eastgate Street was widened.
And for another counter-example, how about Ypres?
Many years ago when the Talyllyn were doing their extension to Nant Gwernol there was a big argument about whether to keep the unique winding house. It was eventually demolished. Now, it would be a major tourist attraction in its own right.
Too many of our urban planners seemed to be similarly short-sighted about how beautiful things had merit in themselves in the long term.
I'm confused - we saw the (indeed notable) winding house c. 1990 (on a memorable rainy day walking up from the end of the line and eploring the old quarries and Abergynolwyn before tea and a bun and the train down). The extension was 1976 on checking and yet this photo is dated 2012. What am I missing?
Probably it’s me. I remember there was one important building they demolished and I thought it was that one, but it’s some years since I read Potter’s book on the subject and I must have confused two different ones. I will see if I can dig it out and check.
That photo is the one on the way into the quarry at the top, which is still there AFAIK.
The one they demolished was the one that fed the incline which dropped down into Abergynolwyn village. You can still see the drum in the undergrowth by the lineside.
I wouldn't say incline winding houses are particularly rare in North Wales - this was my favorite local one growing up (gold nerd star if you know which one it is, without following the image link back!). As a teenager, I used to regularly walk up the incline to it, carrying a mountain bike to continue exploring beyond the top. If you know which one it is, you realise this was somewhat foolhardy, looking back!
I think, on rummaging further in my memory, the unusual feature about the Abergynolwyn one was it was the only one that supplied a village rather than a quarry. You had railway tracks running to the doors of each house, and each would have a truck filled with coal, goods etc coming down every morning and - surprisingly - the village sewage going back up to be taken to Dolgoch and tipped into the river (as Abergynolwyn itself had no running water).
But I could well be wrong on that part being unique as well!
Nice article, thanks. On a smaller scale, there are a couple of houses near me which have been rebuilt in the style of Edwardian/Victorian. They are quetly attractive and make me happy every time we pass them and are far nicer than anything contemporary. Why can't we continue to use styles which work and which people value? Because architects refuse, crying pastiche. Which doesn't strike me as a valid argument.
"But bay windows are Neon Fascist Imperialism. As are decorative moldwork around windows."
An interesting exercise - go and look at some ugly brick boxes (modern). Then go and look at the houses on a lovely street of Edwardian houses. Look at what is actually different.
It actually isn't vast. You could take the brick boxes, and put most of the features in. Render the horrid brick, and paint.
And that tells you what people value. It isn't the lack of foundations, outside privies or roof slopes.
Will post some pastiche later. To hurt the feelings of any architects reading PB. Viscously.
As opposed to fluidly.
That to.
I would chain some of them up in the stocks. In the town square of Poundbry. Pastiche all the way!
An intriguing post. Another example of a city wrecked by urban planning could include Gloucester, where several fine medieval and Georgian buildings were demolished to be replaced by concrete disasters (now useless) when Eastgate Street was widened.
And for another counter-example, how about Ypres?
Many years ago when the Talyllyn were doing their extension to Nant Gwernol there was a big argument about whether to keep the unique winding house. It was eventually demolished. Now, it would be a major tourist attraction in its own right.
Too many of our urban planners seemed to be similarly short-sighted about how beautiful things had merit in themselves in the long term.
I'm confused - we saw the (indeed notable) winding house c. 1990 (on a memorable rainy day walking up from the end of the line and eploring the old quarries and Abergynolwyn before tea and a bun and the train down). The extension was 1976 on checking and yet this photo is dated 2012. What am I missing?
Probably it’s me. I remember there was one important building they demolished and I thought it was that one, but it’s some years since I read Potter’s book on the subject and I must have confused two different ones. I will see if I can dig it out and check.
That photo is the one on the way into the quarry at the top, which is still there AFAIK.
The one they demolished was the one that fed the incline which dropped down into Abergynolwyn village. You can still see the drum in the undergrowth by the lineside.
I wouldn't say incline winding houses are particularly rare in North Wales - this was my favorite local one growing up (gold nerd star if you know which one it is, without following the image link back!). As a teenager, I used to regularly walk up the incline to it, carrying a mountain bike to continue exploring beyond the top. If you know which one it is, you realise this was somewhat foolhardy, looking back!
I think, on rummaging further in my memory, the unusual feature about the Abergynolwyn one was it was the only one that supplied a village rather than a quarry. You had railway tracks running to the doors of each house, and each would have a truck filled with coal, goods etc coming down every morning and - surprisingly - the village sewage going back up to be taken to Dolgoch and tipped into the river (as Abergynolwyn itself had no running water).
But I could well be wrong on that part being unique as well!
I think that aspect was unique, yes. I certainly can't think of another example of anything quite like it.
It would make an epic feature if it could be restored today.
One of the sad things about the Welsh slate inclines is that they are probably too inherently dangerous to be allowed to operate today, so although there are plenty of derelict examples, I doubt any of us will ever see one in operation. (The one at Llanberis doesn't count, as it's a transporter type).
I'm in London right now. (Briefly. I need to fly back to LA because of the fires.)
Those fires look horrific, on a larger scale than previous fires and with strong winds forecast for the next 24 hours it could still get a whole lot worse.
An intriguing post. Another example of a city wrecked by urban planning could include Gloucester, where several fine medieval and Georgian buildings were demolished to be replaced by concrete disasters (now useless) when Eastgate Street was widened.
And for another counter-example, how about Ypres?
Many years ago when the Talyllyn were doing their extension to Nant Gwernol there was a big argument about whether to keep the unique winding house. It was eventually demolished. Now, it would be a major tourist attraction in its own right.
Too many of our urban planners seemed to be similarly short-sighted about how beautiful things had merit in themselves in the long term.
I'm confused - we saw the (indeed notable) winding house c. 1990 (on a memorable rainy day walking up from the end of the line and eploring the old quarries and Abergynolwyn before tea and a bun and the train down). The extension was 1976 on checking and yet this photo is dated 2012. What am I missing?
Probably it’s me. I remember there was one important building they demolished and I thought it was that one, but it’s some years since I read Potter’s book on the subject and I must have confused two different ones. I will see if I can dig it out and check.
That photo is the one on the way into the quarry at the top, which is still there AFAIK.
The one they demolished was the one that fed the incline which dropped down into Abergynolwyn village. You can still see the drum in the undergrowth by the lineside.
I wouldn't say incline winding houses are particularly rare in North Wales - this was my favorite local one growing up (gold nerd star if you know which one it is, without following the image link back!). As a teenager, I used to regularly walk up the incline to it, carrying a mountain bike to continue exploring beyond the top. If you know which one it is, you realise this was somewhat foolhardy, looking back!
I think, on rummaging further in my memory, the unusual feature about the Abergynolwyn one was it was the only one that supplied a village rather than a quarry. You had railway tracks running to the doors of each house, and each would have a truck filled with coal, goods etc coming down every morning and - surprisingly - the village sewage going back up to be taken to Dolgoch and tipped into the river (as Abergynolwyn itself had no running water).
But I could well be wrong on that part being unique as well!
No, you'rse quite right - and probably down to the honey wagons. See, it looks as if the rails even went to the back gates for the coal sheds and rubbish disposal (twiddle the little knob to get old/aerial photo selection).
On the preservation argument (and: excellent header, @GarethoftheVale2 ), I feel that we have swung from a pre-WW2 too-relaxed attitude to one of excessive preservation.
If I had my way (and I accept it's an unpopular view with many), I'd abolish standard Grade II listings completely. We're now up to 2% of the entire housing stock being listed, almost all of it standard Grade II. Are one in fifty dwellings in the UK really "of special interest"?
Of the 380,000 or so listed buildings (in England alone), only 2.5% are Grade I and 5.8% Grade II* (Grade 2-special). Sure, retain these. In Oxfordshire, we'd have 381 Grade I and 694 Grade II* And we'd no longer have something like 12,000 Grade II listed buildings.
In addition, Conservation Officers can just arbitrarily slap a Grade II listing on a property and make redevelopment or improvement of it that much harder. In my ward, they did that to a ramshackle old shack (uninhabitable) that a resident inherited and proposed demolishing to build two new houses (actually habitable ones). Partway through the application, it got listed.
It took years and multiple reiterations of the plans until it was acceptable (reduced to merely rebuilding the one house) and that itself was abandoned when the heir ran out of money and settled up.
We don't need to live in a museum, as you put it.
Sorry, I'm definitely not with you there.
I totally support Grade II listings which include many beautiful buildings, one of which- in the past - I was fortunate to own.
They are fundamental to the historic fabric of so many of our cities, towns and villages - and what gives us value and identity as a country.
I do get and respect your view, but if I may: the proliferation of Grade II listings ends up making the status less and less special, as well as preserving in aspic more and more of the less special and less beautiful buildings.
Revisit Grade II buildings and if they're genuinely special and specially worth preserving unchanged, upgrade them on a case by case basis to Grade II*
The building in question wasn't listed until 2019; it wasn't seen as that special. Using up my allowance for the day, it's this one:
That's a photo from Google Maps, and I can attest that it's unchanged today - more than five years on. Still uninhabited. Still not habitable. And I don't really think it's that beautiful or special (I've been inside; it's a wreck in there). I'd say that giving this the same special status as the house you obviously cherished could actually cheapen the specialness of that Grade II listing.
But I fully understand if you still disagree; it'd be a boring place if we all agreed (even if I'm always right, of course... )
That looks a charming building worthy of preservation and in need of restoration to me.
I definitely wouldn't pull it down.
What we should do is for each property, work through the listing to work out why stuff is listed, which features actually matter for the listing, and then give everything else a status of "do what you like".
Two or three years ago I nearly bought a late 17th century farmstead, listed in the 80s. Now derelict, inside utterly trashed. As the rules stand, I would have had to sought listed building consent to remove the broken 1970s tile fireplaces from the living rooms, or demolish and rebuild the 1960s brick kitchen that had been badly built on the back. Given it's state, it should have had a listing which stated "External frontage and yard only" and let the owners do what they liked with the rest of it.
It's still derelict now, I suspect because the eventual new owner has found obtaining listing building consent to fix it remarkably difficult.
I have friends with a listed Victorian house in Wales who had listed building consent declined when they attempted to remove 1970s everest aluminum framed single glazed windows, and to replace them with double glazed units in an original style, on the basis that the listing status applies to the house as it was when it was listed, aluminum windows and all...!
That's a combination of 1 degree Jobsworthism With Intent. And the idea that the 70s fuckups are a valuable architectural style!
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
An intriguing post. Another example of a city wrecked by urban planning could include Gloucester, where several fine medieval and Georgian buildings were demolished to be replaced by concrete disasters (now useless) when Eastgate Street was widened.
And for another counter-example, how about Ypres?
Many years ago when the Talyllyn were doing their extension to Nant Gwernol there was a big argument about whether to keep the unique winding house. It was eventually demolished. Now, it would be a major tourist attraction in its own right.
Too many of our urban planners seemed to be similarly short-sighted about how beautiful things had merit in themselves in the long term.
I'm confused - we saw the (indeed notable) winding house c. 1990 (on a memorable rainy day walking up from the end of the line and eploring the old quarries and Abergynolwyn before tea and a bun and the train down). The extension was 1976 on checking and yet this photo is dated 2012. What am I missing?
Probably it’s me. I remember there was one important building they demolished and I thought it was that one, but it’s some years since I read Potter’s book on the subject and I must have confused two different ones. I will see if I can dig it out and check.
That photo is the one on the way into the quarry at the top, which is still there AFAIK.
The one they demolished was the one that fed the incline which dropped down into Abergynolwyn village. You can still see the drum in the undergrowth by the lineside.
I wouldn't say incline winding houses are particularly rare in North Wales - this was my favorite local one growing up (gold nerd star if you know which one it is, without following the image link back!). As a teenager, I used to regularly walk up the incline to it, carrying a mountain bike to continue exploring beyond the top. If you know which one it is, you realise this was somewhat foolhardy, looking back!
I think, on rummaging further in my memory, the unusual feature about the Abergynolwyn one was it was the only one that supplied a village rather than a quarry. You had railway tracks running to the doors of each house, and each would have a truck filled with coal, goods etc coming down every morning and - surprisingly - the village sewage going back up to be taken to Dolgoch and tipped into the river (as Abergynolwyn itself had no running water).
But I could well be wrong on that part being unique as well!
No, you'rse quite right - and probably down to the honey wagons. See, it looks as if the rails even went to the back gates for the coal sheds and rubbish disposal (twiddle the little knob to get old/aerial photo selection).
Oh yes, I'm confident about that part. I'm just wondering if that was 'unique,' i.e. were there any other villages served in that way by a railway and an incline house?
I've reviewed every team pairing (70-80% of which are new this year) and picked who I think will end up on top in each team. That's not too difficult for, say, Aston Martin, but a few others are rather trickier. At the end, I ranked the lineups briefly, considering both drivers.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Zelensky won't accept such a peace and if Merz wins in Germany next month he has promised to increase German military aid to Ukraine which should offset some of the aid cuts Trump will make
On the preservation argument (and: excellent header, @GarethoftheVale2 ), I feel that we have swung from a pre-WW2 too-relaxed attitude to one of excessive preservation.
If I had my way (and I accept it's an unpopular view with many), I'd abolish standard Grade II listings completely. We're now up to 2% of the entire housing stock being listed, almost all of it standard Grade II. Are one in fifty dwellings in the UK really "of special interest"?
Of the 380,000 or so listed buildings (in England alone), only 2.5% are Grade I and 5.8% Grade II* (Grade 2-special). Sure, retain these. In Oxfordshire, we'd have 381 Grade I and 694 Grade II* And we'd no longer have something like 12,000 Grade II listed buildings.
In addition, Conservation Officers can just arbitrarily slap a Grade II listing on a property and make redevelopment or improvement of it that much harder. In my ward, they did that to a ramshackle old shack (uninhabitable) that a resident inherited and proposed demolishing to build two new houses (actually habitable ones). Partway through the application, it got listed.
It took years and multiple reiterations of the plans until it was acceptable (reduced to merely rebuilding the one house) and that itself was abandoned when the heir ran out of money and settled up.
We don't need to live in a museum, as you put it.
Sorry, I'm definitely not with you there.
I totally support Grade II listings which include many beautiful buildings, one of which- in the past - I was fortunate to own.
They are fundamental to the historic fabric of so many of our cities, towns and villages - and what gives us value and identity as a country.
I do get and respect your view, but if I may: the proliferation of Grade II listings ends up making the status less and less special, as well as preserving in aspic more and more of the less special and less beautiful buildings.
Revisit Grade II buildings and if they're genuinely special and specially worth preserving unchanged, upgrade them on a case by case basis to Grade II*
The building in question wasn't listed until 2019; it wasn't seen as that special. Using up my allowance for the day, it's this one:
That's a photo from Google Maps, and I can attest that it's unchanged today - more than five years on. Still uninhabited. Still not habitable. And I don't really think it's that beautiful or special (I've been inside; it's a wreck in there). I'd say that giving this the same special status as the house you obviously cherished could actually cheapen the specialness of that Grade II listing.
But I fully understand if you still disagree; it'd be a boring place if we all agreed (even if I'm always right, of course... )
That looks a charming building worthy of preservation and in need of restoration to me.
I definitely wouldn't pull it down.
What we should do is for each property, work through the listing to work out why stuff is listed, which features actually matter for the listing, and then give everything else a status of "do what you like".
Two or three years ago I nearly bought a late 17th century farmstead, listed in the 80s. Now derelict, inside utterly trashed. As the rules stand, I would have had to sought listed building consent to remove the broken 1970s tile fireplaces from the living rooms, or demolish and rebuild the 1960s brick kitchen that had been badly built on the back. Given it's state, it should have had a listing which stated "External frontage and yard only" and let the owners do what they liked with the rest of it.
It's still derelict now, I suspect because the eventual new owner has found obtaining listing building consent to fix it remarkably difficult.
I have friends with a listed Victorian house in Wales who had listed building consent declined when they attempted to remove 1970s everest aluminum framed single glazed windows, and to replace them with double glazed units in an original style, on the basis that the listing status applies to the house as it was when it was listed, aluminum windows and all...!
Agreed. GII listing, in theory, allows considerable flexibility. In practice, though, it tends to put you at the mercy of planning officers.
On the preservation argument (and: excellent header, @GarethoftheVale2 ), I feel that we have swung from a pre-WW2 too-relaxed attitude to one of excessive preservation.
If I had my way (and I accept it's an unpopular view with many), I'd abolish standard Grade II listings completely. We're now up to 2% of the entire housing stock being listed, almost all of it standard Grade II. Are one in fifty dwellings in the UK really "of special interest"?
Of the 380,000 or so listed buildings (in England alone), only 2.5% are Grade I and 5.8% Grade II* (Grade 2-special). Sure, retain these. In Oxfordshire, we'd have 381 Grade I and 694 Grade II* And we'd no longer have something like 12,000 Grade II listed buildings.
In addition, Conservation Officers can just arbitrarily slap a Grade II listing on a property and make redevelopment or improvement of it that much harder. In my ward, they did that to a ramshackle old shack (uninhabitable) that a resident inherited and proposed demolishing to build two new houses (actually habitable ones). Partway through the application, it got listed.
It took years and multiple reiterations of the plans until it was acceptable (reduced to merely rebuilding the one house) and that itself was abandoned when the heir ran out of money and settled up.
We don't need to live in a museum, as you put it.
Sorry, I'm definitely not with you there.
I totally support Grade II listings which include many beautiful buildings, one of which- in the past - I was fortunate to own.
They are fundamental to the historic fabric of so many of our cities, towns and villages - and what gives us value and identity as a country.
I do get and respect your view, but if I may: the proliferation of Grade II listings ends up making the status less and less special, as well as preserving in aspic more and more of the less special and less beautiful buildings.
Revisit Grade II buildings and if they're genuinely special and specially worth preserving unchanged, upgrade them on a case by case basis to Grade II*
The building in question wasn't listed until 2019; it wasn't seen as that special. Using up my allowance for the day, it's this one:
That's a photo from Google Maps, and I can attest that it's unchanged today - more than five years on. Still uninhabited. Still not habitable. And I don't really think it's that beautiful or special (I've been inside; it's a wreck in there). I'd say that giving this the same special status as the house you obviously cherished could actually cheapen the specialness of that Grade II listing.
But I fully understand if you still disagree; it'd be a boring place if we all agreed (even if I'm always right, of course... )
That looks a charming building worthy of preservation and in need of restoration to me.
I definitely wouldn't pull it down.
What we should do is for each property, work through the listing to work out why stuff is listed, which features actually matter for the listing, and then give everything else a status of "do what you like".
Two or three years ago I nearly bought a late 17th century farmstead, listed in the 80s. Now derelict, inside utterly trashed. As the rules stand, I would have had to sought listed building consent to remove the broken 1970s tile fireplaces from the living rooms, or demolish and rebuild the 1960s brick kitchen that had been badly built on the back. Given it's state, it should have had a listing which stated "External frontage and yard only" and let the owners do what they liked with the rest of it.
It's still derelict now, I suspect because the eventual new owner has found obtaining listing building consent to fix it remarkably difficult.
I have friends with a listed Victorian house in Wales who had listed building consent declined when they attempted to remove 1970s everest aluminum framed single glazed windows, and to replace them with double glazed units in an original style, on the basis that the listing status applies to the house as it was when it was listed, aluminum windows and all...!
That's odd. I know of an old Free Kirk of the 1840s Disruption era which is listed but which had a horrible later extension on the back - to convert to a church hall. The developers were allowed to demolish the horrible bit and leave only the original stonework and roof, and replace the extension with a rather nice timber clad modern one to create three houses. The frontage remains the same, only now better looked after!
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Zelensky won't accept such a peace and if Merz wins in Germany next month he has promised to increase German military aid to Ukraine which should offset some of the aid cuts Trump will make
If Europe does go it alone on the Ukraine without Trump then we really do need to win or it really will be a repeat of the Suez.
Personally I think we should keep supporting them.
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing. (Soft power doesn't necessarily have to be nice, mind: public campaigns against a developer or development inevitably make life uncomfortable for the key proponents; that's the intent and the means to change).
As for 'designing out crime', yes, that should be an aim - though again the record of actual developments designed to socially guide communities is decidedly patchy. Simply aim for functionality as a starting point: if you give people what they want then they will use it. Beyond that, yes: if people cherish something then they will take more care of it. Again, that may need an extra initial investment but will be worth it, which is a point to be put to developers. It can be done but it needs those in charge to have a little more confidence and trust in others and to guide with a light touch. That's a culture change many will find hard to adapt to.
An intriguing post. Another example of a city wrecked by urban planning could include Gloucester, where several fine medieval and Georgian buildings were demolished to be replaced by concrete disasters (now useless) when Eastgate Street was widened.
And for another counter-example, how about Ypres?
Many years ago when the Talyllyn were doing their extension to Nant Gwernol there was a big argument about whether to keep the unique winding house. It was eventually demolished. Now, it would be a major tourist attraction in its own right.
Too many of our urban planners seemed to be similarly short-sighted about how beautiful things had merit in themselves in the long term.
I'm confused - we saw the (indeed notable) winding house c. 1990 (on a memorable rainy day walking up from the end of the line and eploring the old quarries and Abergynolwyn before tea and a bun and the train down). The extension was 1976 on checking and yet this photo is dated 2012. What am I missing?
Probably it’s me. I remember there was one important building they demolished and I thought it was that one, but it’s some years since I read Potter’s book on the subject and I must have confused two different ones. I will see if I can dig it out and check.
That photo is the one on the way into the quarry at the top, which is still there AFAIK.
The one they demolished was the one that fed the incline which dropped down into Abergynolwyn village. You can still see the drum in the undergrowth by the lineside.
I wouldn't say incline winding houses are particularly rare in North Wales - this was my favorite local one growing up (gold nerd star if you know which one it is, without following the image link back!). As a teenager, I used to regularly walk up the incline to it, carrying a mountain bike to continue exploring beyond the top. If you know which one it is, you realise this was somewhat foolhardy, looking back!
I think, on rummaging further in my memory, the unusual feature about the Abergynolwyn one was it was the only one that supplied a village rather than a quarry. You had railway tracks running to the doors of each house, and each would have a truck filled with coal, goods etc coming down every morning and - surprisingly - the village sewage going back up to be taken to Dolgoch and tipped into the river (as Abergynolwyn itself had no running water).
But I could well be wrong on that part being unique as well!
No, you'rse quite right - and probably down to the honey wagons. See, it looks as if the rails even went to the back gates for the coal sheds and rubbish disposal (twiddle the little knob to get old/aerial photo selection).
Oh yes, I'm confident about that part. I'm just wondering if that was 'unique,' i.e. were there any other villages served in that way by a railway and an incline house?
Interesting map by the way, thanks. Don't think I've come across it before. I've bookmarked it to have some fun with it later.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
On the preservation argument (and: excellent header, @GarethoftheVale2 ), I feel that we have swung from a pre-WW2 too-relaxed attitude to one of excessive preservation.
If I had my way (and I accept it's an unpopular view with many), I'd abolish standard Grade II listings completely. We're now up to 2% of the entire housing stock being listed, almost all of it standard Grade II. Are one in fifty dwellings in the UK really "of special interest"?
Of the 380,000 or so listed buildings (in England alone), only 2.5% are Grade I and 5.8% Grade II* (Grade 2-special). Sure, retain these. In Oxfordshire, we'd have 381 Grade I and 694 Grade II* And we'd no longer have something like 12,000 Grade II listed buildings.
In addition, Conservation Officers can just arbitrarily slap a Grade II listing on a property and make redevelopment or improvement of it that much harder. In my ward, they did that to a ramshackle old shack (uninhabitable) that a resident inherited and proposed demolishing to build two new houses (actually habitable ones). Partway through the application, it got listed.
It took years and multiple reiterations of the plans until it was acceptable (reduced to merely rebuilding the one house) and that itself was abandoned when the heir ran out of money and settled up.
We don't need to live in a museum, as you put it.
Sorry, I'm definitely not with you there.
I totally support Grade II listings which include many beautiful buildings, one of which- in the past - I was fortunate to own.
They are fundamental to the historic fabric of so many of our cities, towns and villages - and what gives us value and identity as a country.
I do get and respect your view, but if I may: the proliferation of Grade II listings ends up making the status less and less special, as well as preserving in aspic more and more of the less special and less beautiful buildings.
Revisit Grade II buildings and if they're genuinely special and specially worth preserving unchanged, upgrade them on a case by case basis to Grade II*
The building in question wasn't listed until 2019; it wasn't seen as that special. Using up my allowance for the day, it's this one:
That's a photo from Google Maps, and I can attest that it's unchanged today - more than five years on. Still uninhabited. Still not habitable. And I don't really think it's that beautiful or special (I've been inside; it's a wreck in there). I'd say that giving this the same special status as the house you obviously cherished could actually cheapen the specialness of that Grade II listing.
But I fully understand if you still disagree; it'd be a boring place if we all agreed (even if I'm always right, of course... )
That looks a charming building worthy of preservation and in need of restoration to me.
I definitely wouldn't pull it down.
What we should do is for each property, work through the listing to work out why stuff is listed, which features actually matter for the listing, and then give everything else a status of "do what you like".
Two or three years ago I nearly bought a late 17th century farmstead, listed in the 80s. Now derelict, inside utterly trashed. As the rules stand, I would have had to sought listed building consent to remove the broken 1970s tile fireplaces from the living rooms, or demolish and rebuild the 1960s brick kitchen that had been badly built on the back. Given it's state, it should have had a listing which stated "External frontage and yard only" and let the owners do what they liked with the rest of it.
It's still derelict now, I suspect because the eventual new owner has found obtaining listing building consent to fix it remarkably difficult.
I have friends with a listed Victorian house in Wales who had listed building consent declined when they attempted to remove 1970s everest aluminum framed single glazed windows, and to replace them with double glazed units in an original style, on the basis that the listing status applies to the house as it was when it was listed, aluminum windows and all...!
That's odd. I know of an old Free Kirk of the 1840s Disruption era which is listed but which had a horrible later extension on the back - to convert to a church hall. The developers were allowed to demolish the horrible bit and leave only the original stonework and roof, and replace the extension with a rather nice timber clad modern one to create three houses. The frontage remains the same, only now better looked after!
I think I probably would have got permission, the problem is the risk you won't, at which point you've a derelict basket case you can't do anything with. There were other areas which had the potential to be very problematic too - not least the roof, original probably stone slab, currently failing 1960s asbestos based tiles. It probably wanted to be redone in slate, but I feared being made to do it in stone slab, which would be horrifically expensive.
There's also the problem that my timescale for making the whole place habitable didn't really want a 6-12 month delay whilst I dealt with planning first.
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
The good thing about the Jaguar campaign is that it shows Tata's commitment to the brand. Other manufacturers would have killed it years ago.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Yes, I recall making the point repeatedly that Trump wasn’t as isolationist but just thought that American power should serve American interests.
On the preservation argument (and: excellent header, @GarethoftheVale2 ), I feel that we have swung from a pre-WW2 too-relaxed attitude to one of excessive preservation.
If I had my way (and I accept it's an unpopular view with many), I'd abolish standard Grade II listings completely. We're now up to 2% of the entire housing stock being listed, almost all of it standard Grade II. Are one in fifty dwellings in the UK really "of special interest"?
Of the 380,000 or so listed buildings (in England alone), only 2.5% are Grade I and 5.8% Grade II* (Grade 2-special). Sure, retain these. In Oxfordshire, we'd have 381 Grade I and 694 Grade II* And we'd no longer have something like 12,000 Grade II listed buildings.
In addition, Conservation Officers can just arbitrarily slap a Grade II listing on a property and make redevelopment or improvement of it that much harder. In my ward, they did that to a ramshackle old shack (uninhabitable) that a resident inherited and proposed demolishing to build two new houses (actually habitable ones). Partway through the application, it got listed.
It took years and multiple reiterations of the plans until it was acceptable (reduced to merely rebuilding the one house) and that itself was abandoned when the heir ran out of money and settled up.
We don't need to live in a museum, as you put it.
Sorry, I'm definitely not with you there.
I totally support Grade II listings which include many beautiful buildings, one of which- in the past - I was fortunate to own.
They are fundamental to the historic fabric of so many of our cities, towns and villages - and what gives us value and identity as a country.
I do get and respect your view, but if I may: the proliferation of Grade II listings ends up making the status less and less special, as well as preserving in aspic more and more of the less special and less beautiful buildings.
Revisit Grade II buildings and if they're genuinely special and specially worth preserving unchanged, upgrade them on a case by case basis to Grade II*
The building in question wasn't listed until 2019; it wasn't seen as that special. Using up my allowance for the day, it's this one:
That's a photo from Google Maps, and I can attest that it's unchanged today - more than five years on. Still uninhabited. Still not habitable. And I don't really think it's that beautiful or special (I've been inside; it's a wreck in there). I'd say that giving this the same special status as the house you obviously cherished could actually cheapen the specialness of that Grade II listing.
But I fully understand if you still disagree; it'd be a boring place if we all agreed (even if I'm always right, of course... )
That looks a charming building worthy of preservation and in need of restoration to me.
I definitely wouldn't pull it down.
What we should do is for each property, work through the listing to work out why stuff is listed, which features actually matter for the listing, and then give everything else a status of "do what you like".
Two or three years ago I nearly bought a late 17th century farmstead, listed in the 80s. Now derelict, inside utterly trashed. As the rules stand, I would have had to sought listed building consent to remove the broken 1970s tile fireplaces from the living rooms, or demolish and rebuild the 1960s brick kitchen that had been badly built on the back. Given it's state, it should have had a listing which stated "External frontage and yard only" and let the owners do what they liked with the rest of it.
It's still derelict now, I suspect because the eventual new owner has found obtaining listing building consent to fix it remarkably difficult.
I have friends with a listed Victorian house in Wales who had listed building consent declined when they attempted to remove 1970s everest aluminum framed single glazed windows, and to replace them with double glazed units in an original style, on the basis that the listing status applies to the house as it was when it was listed, aluminum windows and all...!
That's odd. I know of an old Free Kirk of the 1840s Disruption era which is listed but which had a horrible later extension on the back - to convert to a church hall. The developers were allowed to demolish the horrible bit and leave only the original stonework and roof, and replace the extension with a rather nice timber clad modern one to create three houses. The frontage remains the same, only now better looked after!
That would be down to partially protecting the building (as mentioned above as an option).
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Zelensky won't accept such a peace and if Merz wins in Germany next month he has promised to increase German military aid to Ukraine which should offset some of the aid cuts Trump will make
Right now Russia is slowly winning but it is nothing like decisive, and Germany is not going to make up for the United States, and without America's brooding presence, Russia might find greater assistance elsewhere.
The paradox is that America's best leverage for negotiating a peace deal is also why it might not want to. Gas. Ukraine has just terminated its pipeline agreement with Russia. There is no straightforward substitute.
So if as a result of an American-negotiated peace deal, the gas pipeline reopens, it is win-win. Russia can sell more gas, especially after sanctions are lifted, and Ukraine gets commission on gas passing through the pipeline, which is most of it.
The loser, ironically, might be the USA which is currently the leading gas exporter, and could do without Russia reducing the price of gas and taking back customers.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
You really can’t see why, even with all this hindsight, many of us still wouldn’t want to be subsumed into the EU and won’t ever regard leaving as an error? I see no distinction between Trump wanting to control us and us being swallowed up into the EU. We are big enough to reject both and do our own thing.
I'm sorry to say that, from any realistic economic metric, we're not.
And the following decades may now offer a choice between a quite reasonable degree of social and economic autonomy within the E.U., and literal incorporation into the U.S, as a distant province whose only significance would be, London.
I am sorry but that’s just not correct. I think where our sides of the debate tend to speak past each other is that you don’t understand that I have no real desire to influence or be significant in world events (other than when forced to by national interest as with Ukraine). Generally speaking I think Britain has done its bit and can sit back, hide behind a nuclear deterrent and (boosted) armed forces and be what we are: a large economy but not a superpower, and with no pretensions of shaping global trade as a major block, but rather shaping and exploiting what we can. We have a large enough economy and population to largely do our own thing, but on issues like product standards probably mostly bounce along with the EU by choice and for our convenience.
People who want to join the EU tend to be old fashioned imperialist types who want a presence on the “world stage” and to “punch above our weight” (that may or may not be you). There is another choice: metaphorically retire to our favourite comfy chair and only engage in the world when we have to. Let someone else have a go.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
Musk got big loans from banks including Barclays to buy Twitter, who are now ruing their losses. Will they fall for the the Midas Touch line again?
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
Musk got big loans from banks including Barclays to buy Twitter, who are now ruing their losses. Will they fall for the the Midas Touch line again?
It’s official – the financing for Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (X) is the worst leveraged finance deal since the great crisis, and consequently a strong podium contender for the worst deal of all time. It’s been “hung” (stuck on the banks’ balance sheets rather than sold to investors) for nearly two years now, and at $13bn it’s one of the largest hung deals of all time.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
Well that is pretty bloody obvious, the issue is will the people they want as customers want them. The brand is shit, it has been in decline for many many years.
When I was working there over a decade ago they were pinning their hopes on X760 and X761 saving the brand as there were plenty in JLR who would have happily canned Jaguars and just made more Land Rovers. Before that it was the X200/X350 they pinned their hopes on.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
Bad, from the picture at least. Completely out of keeping with surroundings (if it turns out the whole street is a mix of old/new/standard/tall then I'd be more relaxed about it).
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Zelensky won't accept such a peace and if Merz wins in Germany next month he has promised to increase German military aid to Ukraine which should offset some of the aid cuts Trump will make
Right now Russia is slowly winning but it is nothing like decisive, and Germany is not going to make up for the United States, and without America's brooding presence, Russia might find greater assistance elsewhere.
The paradox is that America's best leverage for negotiating a peace deal is also why it might not want to. Gas. Ukraine has just terminated its pipeline agreement with Russia. There is no straightforward substitute.
So if as a result of an American-negotiated peace deal, the gas pipeline reopens, it is win-win. Russia can sell more gas, especially after sanctions are lifted, and Ukraine gets commission on gas passing through the pipeline, which is most of it.
The loser, ironically, might be the USA which is currently the leading gas exporter, and could do without Russia reducing the price of gas and taking back customers.
So which way will Trump jump?
“Winning” is awfully optimistic.
The aggressors net gained an area the size of Luxembourg last year - at the cost of 400,000 men, tens of thousands of machines, a couple of hundred billion dollars, interest rates at 21%, mass emigration of anyone who can find a way to get their money out, and a cementing of their position as an international pariah country with increasing sanctions.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
It's not bad but the New English Hymnal is way better.
Oh, sorry, you meant about the buildings?
Brutalist can be fun. Car park in Bordeaux. And since it's a Jaguar if you don't like it, it's not for you.
That looks like the same make as Inspector Morse's Jag.
The same type of Jag they were throwing around car parks and disused land and smashing to pieces filming "blags" in The Sweeney.
In the absence of @Dura_Ace it most likely a Mark 2 although it could be the later S type which shares it's face with the MK2. Their values have increased recently since the days they could be picked up for a hundred quid.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
It's not bad but the New English Hymnal is way better.
Oh, sorry, you meant about the buildings?
Brutalist can be fun. Car park in Bordeaux. And since it's a Jaguar if you don't like it, it's not for you.
That looks like the same make as Inspector Morse's Jag.
The same type of Jag they were throwing around car parks and disused land and smashing to pieces filming "blags" in The Sweeney.
It’s entirely the wrong colour green for that model, of course.
Which is why I said same make.
Oh you misunderstand - I wasn’t saying you had mistaken them (Morse’s was, in fact, red after all). I was having a pop at the owner of the vehicle. Never mind the current state of the vehicle, it’s also a shade of green you should never see on a classic car.
I'm in London right now. (Briefly. I need to fly back to LA because of the fires.)
And you know what, London is an amazing beautiful city. And the reason it's amazing is because, unlike so many other cities, it is essentially unplanned. It's a hodgepodge of the new and the old, the terrible and the amazing, the historic, the cheap, the brutalist, and the beautiful. It has Regency terraces and the Barbican.
It's not a museum, it's an organic thing. No designer sat down - like Paris and New York - and said "this is how the streets should be".
And that's why it's great.
Yes, we will put up ugly buildings from time to time. But you know what, they'll get demolished in time, and replaced by better ones.
It's not a museum. It's not full of replica buildings (the Globe excepted). It's a real place built by millions of people's individual decisions.
Let's celebrate that, and - if anything - allow more freedom for people to build what they want.
Yes and no. The single greatest collection of masterpieces in London is the 39 City churches. Most were damaged in the war, many destroyed. Many were carefully rebuilt along the lines they had before the bombs.
OTOH once upon a time there were 120 in the square mile. The city would be quite a place if they had all survived.
Just to add, the finest of those churches were also planned and commissioned in complementary groups. Without this kind of underlying light order, the rest of the city might be a bit perplexing.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Zelensky won't accept such a peace and if Merz wins in Germany next month he has promised to increase German military aid to Ukraine which should offset some of the aid cuts Trump will make
Right now Russia is slowly winning but it is nothing like decisive, and Germany is not going to make up for the United States, and without America's brooding presence, Russia might find greater assistance elsewhere.
The paradox is that America's best leverage for negotiating a peace deal is also why it might not want to. Gas. Ukraine has just terminated its pipeline agreement with Russia. There is no straightforward substitute.
So if as a result of an American-negotiated peace deal, the gas pipeline reopens, it is win-win. Russia can sell more gas, especially after sanctions are lifted, and Ukraine gets commission on gas passing through the pipeline, which is most of it.
The loser, ironically, might be the USA which is currently the leading gas exporter, and could do without Russia reducing the price of gas and taking back customers.
So which way will Trump jump?
“Winning” is awfully optimistic.
The aggressors net gained an area the size of Luxembourg last year - at the cost of 400,000 men, tens of thousands of machines, a couple of hundred billion dollars, interest rates at 21%, mass emigration of anyone who can find a way to get their money out, and a cementing of their position as an international pariah country with increasing sanctions.
Russia will be finding the cost of Ukraine has to be measured in decades.
History - especially Russian history - will not be kind to Putin.
Another 1,660 of Russia's/North Korea's finest fed into the meat grinder yesterday. The increment to Russia's forces by the North Korean forces joining them have amounted to barely a week worth of casualties in the SMO. Who can he tap up next for willing martyrs?
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Having more than a certain number of shareholders in a private company actually triggers going public, in the US.
The company was valued at $350 Billion, recently, a result of a recent private share sale round. SpaceX organises these, yearly, to allow employees to sell shares.
Musk own 78%+ of voting stock and 54% of the overall stock.
It is doubtful he would ever sell. In fact, in recent years, he has been buying shares back.
The potential sale would be of the Starlink LEO constellation. If broken out and sold separately, it could well IPO, on its own for hundreds of billions.
It's not bad but the New English Hymnal is way better.
Oh, sorry, you meant about the buildings?
Brutalist can be fun. Car park in Bordeaux. And since it's a Jaguar if you don't like it, it's not for you.
That looks like the same make as Inspector Morse's Jag.
The same type of Jag they were throwing around car parks and disused land and smashing to pieces filming "blags" in The Sweeney.
It’s entirely the wrong colour green for that model, of course.
Which is why I said same make.
Oh you misunderstand - I wasn’t saying you had mistaken them (Morse’s was, in fact, red after all). I was having a pop at the owner of the vehicle. Never mind the current state of the vehicle, it’s also a shade of green you should never see on a classic car.
Gotcha
That shade of Green is more a seventies Capri or Austin 1100 to me.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
That's Foxy out of a job.
I doubt that. In any event this is years away from being a generally available treatment.
But medtech marches on.
OK, a conversation about Type 1 diabetes is worth ending my break for, though I'll be staying fairly quiet.
I'd say this will be 15-25 years before it becomes widespread as a routine therapy. For one thing, we need long term studies to see if it is a treatment with long-term viability. And it's surgical, so expensive to do.
One of the obvious problems is that this is a transplant, so has availability issues - where do the Islets of Langerhans for transplant come from, given that we have 300k-400k or so Type I Diabetics and about 10k new ones each year?
Removing the need for immunosuppression is one element, but there are others. They could potentially be grown through something like appropriately genetically engineered pigs with turbo-pancreases (I don't know enough to comment if it could be done specifically for individual compatibility and when), but really it will want artificially grown cells.
We also really want some sort of easy delivery mechanism - eg direct injection into your pancreas with a big needle, like the ones used for a bone marrow biopsy (these are about 3mm in diameter - they are bloody sharp and it bloody hurts). I do not know if that is possible even in theory.
It took insulin pumps around 30 years to go from "you can have one if you take part in a clinical study and are within reach of a specialist centre - there were about 6 in the country, but you will have to fund some consumables yourself" to "rolling out semi-closed loop pumps to everyone who wants one over a couple of years."
This particular treatment is stem cell derived, so cell supply wouldn't be a problem if it proves a viable therapy.
I think "15-25 years" is probably an overestimate, but I agree it's not going to be quick, and success is a very long way from guaranteed.
But compared to where things stood yesterday, it's a significant advance.
(The PI trial was intramuscular injection, for proof of principle. What the planned delivery mechanism might be for an approved treatment, I don't know.)
Until the US bans anything stem cell derived because abortion.
It's not bad but the New English Hymnal is way better.
Oh, sorry, you meant about the buildings?
Brutalist can be fun. Car park in Bordeaux. And since it's a Jaguar if you don't like it, it's not for you.
That looks like the same make as Inspector Morse's Jag.
The same type of Jag they were throwing around car parks and disused land and smashing to pieces filming "blags" in The Sweeney.
A testament to Jaguar's historic build quality!
Today's models would emerge like slices of salami, the building intact!
William Lyons was notorious for being a proponent of providing economical components to generate profitability. As such early E-types had sub-standard braking capability.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
An interesting aside is thar Varoufakis's book about the new era of Techno-Feudalism was largely ignored a couple of years ago, as hyperbolic.
But with Musk now in a global driving seat, not only controlling much of the flow information and future space travel, but also potentially directing the.world's largest military and economy to take over a territory for his electric car metals, it turns out that he was very much right.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Even just the rhetoric damages economic confidence and investment, and diplomacy. (If he starts on tariffs, that's going to be hugely damaging to the world economy. Actual military action would be catastrophic.)
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
If your enemies are fighting each other, they aren't fighting you.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Don’t think his map reading is all that, perhaps he could be persuaded that it’s actually the ‘Isle’ of Lewis.
Today’s was a brilliant PB Header to read over second breakfast. 🫡
Going off Topic, sorry. But i’m not on any banned subject of big grooming gang clear blue water policy between Labour and Conservative, dominating UK politics this week and some time to come. Though in immigration policy - which is surely a different subject than the banned one - we all suspect, regardless of dismal 13 year record on immigration, going into 3rd May 2029 promising 0% immigration from countries with alien medieval culture is now huge election vote winner for Conservatives?
When Elon Musk has bought Liverpool FC franchise (paying over the odds or maybe current owners keen to take his money) what will he change the clubs name to? Will they play some home games stateside? Is he the sort to go into dressing room for pep talks, or interfere in team selection? We don’t really know much about Elon Musk in UK, but through his ownership of Liverpool FC we will learn a lot more.
His team plays again tonight, will they provide yet more evidence they are becoming tired and leggy, without press and movement off ball their performances will be nothing special second half of season? 🤔
Always liked Martin Brundle going back to his racing days. However, he has managed to stay around F1 for decades despite the numerous odious and shady characters involved. Many of which he has probably interviewed and chatted with over the years. Some maybe he viewed as friends. Never saw fit to leave it though.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
If your enemies are fighting each other, they aren't fighting you.
So you're saying that those countries that set themselves against Trump are helping Putin?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
If your enemies are fighting each other, they aren't fighting you.
So you're saying that those countries that set themselves against Trump are helping Putin?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
If your enemies are fighting each other, they aren't fighting you.
So you're saying that those countries that set themselves against Trump are helping Putin?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
If your enemies are fighting each other, they aren't fighting you.
So you're saying that those countries that set themselves against Trump are helping Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Well at least that was an answer rather than a one-line quizzical question. You are going mad.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
"There is great chaos under heaven - the situation is excellent" - Mao (apocryphal)
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
If your enemies are fighting each other, they aren't fighting you.
So you're saying that those countries that set themselves against Trump are helping Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
I think we can say to those such as @williamglenn that those that are apologists for Trump=apologists for Putin.
Perhaps when he reflects on this we might see another 180 degree shift in his world view.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
Interesting. Goes against all my instincts! (First degree incorporated space science and I did some stuff thereafter, but I am a tad out of date. He does make Ariane look really stupid).
On topic, I view the post war period as a bit of the wild west, anything goes.
Suspect every town lost numerous notable buildings on the whim of a land owner wanting rid of something.
Yesterday, I was looking at an image of a stunning large barn in the fens, said to be owned by Cromwell (on his farm) where he trained some of his soldiers. Despite a preservation order, the land owner knocked it down one morning in the early 60s, as he wanted to build on it. No action taken. This town then lost an historical landmark.
We should preserve our beautiful historic buildings, they are a part of us.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Today’s was a brilliant PB Header to read over second breakfast. 🫡
Going off Topic, sorry. But i’m not on any banned subject of big grooming gang clear blue water policy between Labour and Conservative, dominating UK politics this week and some time to come. Though in immigration policy - which is surely a different subject than the banned one - we all suspect, regardless of dismal 13 year record on immigration, going into 3rd May 2029 promising 0% immigration from countries with alien medieval culture is now huge election vote winner for Conservatives?
When Elon Musk has bought Liverpool FC franchise (paying over the odds or maybe current owners keen to take his money) what will he change the clubs name to? Will they play some home games stateside? Is he the sort to go into dressing room for pep talks, or interfere in team selection? We don’t really know much about Elon Musk in UK, but through his ownership of Liverpool FC we will learn a lot more.
His team plays again tonight, will they provide yet more evidence they are becoming tired and leggy, without press and movement off ball their performances will be nothing special second half of season? 🤔
Good morning
At least I hope they do not blame the ball as Arteta did for Arsenal losing last night
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
When NATO was set up there was certainly no idea from its founders the leader of one NATO nation would even consider invading the territory of another NATO nation. Even Putin hasn't invaded a NATO nation
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
It's not just invasion - for which Iraq, Afghanistan and various other wars provide a precedent. It's territorial annexation. Few have attempted that since WW2. Galtieri in 1982 springs to mind. Or Maduro's recent threats to Guyana. Even the Suez crisis - our other analogue for what Trump is threatening - fell short of attempted annexation.
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
Yes we know this, and I've heard this argument made so many times before - that if you deliberately piss off your existing base you can replace it with a bigger, more modern progressive one; George Osborne and Lord Feldman said it about Conservative Party members.
Like for them, and so many others, the risk is you piss off the existing base, your "deplorables" attitude alienates a still wider group, and the new market never materialises.
Or the Hundred.
What I don't understand with Jaguar, regardless of the silliness of the adverts, is why they think anyone would want to pay a seven figure sum for the bastard love child of a VW Beetle and a Ford Capri, which offers about the same range as a high spec MG.
It reminds me of the time Homer Simpson tried to design a car, and not in a good way.
Wishful thinking.
Clearly they've done some market research (or one would hope they have) that they think backs this up, but this can be fallible.
I think, fundamentally, leadership were simply embarrassed by the pale, male and stale and older client base - who couldn't afford the price point of the new cars anyway, but were attached to the old brand - so decided to go "all in" in pissing them off in the hope the noise and controversy from the backlash would boost the hits and marketing and impress their target audience.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
On your own metric that is not comparable as Grenada had just had a marxist lead military coup.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Comments
In the hybrid working era new residential accommodation is probably just as important as new office accommodation
But I could well be wrong on that part being unique as well!
https://x.com/JoshLipnik/status/1876106366982684831
Oh, sorry, you meant about the buildings?
I would chain some of them up in the stocks. In the town square of Poundbry. Pastiche all the way!
It would make an epic feature if it could be restored today.
One of the sad things about the Welsh slate inclines is that they are probably too inherently dangerous to be allowed to operate today, so although there are plenty of derelict examples, I doubt any of us will ever see one in operation. (The one at Llanberis doesn't count, as it's a transporter type).
https://x.com/SustainableTall/status/1873648029963845962
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.9&lat=52.64451&lon=-3.95794&layers=6&b=ESRIWorld&o=0
https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-driver-lineup-predictions/
I've reviewed every team pairing (70-80% of which are new this year) and picked who I think will end up on top in each team. That's not too difficult for, say, Aston Martin, but a few others are rather trickier. At the end, I ranked the lineups briefly, considering both drivers.
Hope you give it a listen.
GII listing, in theory, allows considerable flexibility. In practice, though, it tends to put you at the mercy of planning officers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/08/france-warns-trump-against-threatening-eu-sovereign-borders-greenland
Personally I think we should keep supporting them.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing. (Soft power doesn't necessarily have to be nice, mind: public campaigns against a developer or development inevitably make life uncomfortable for the key proponents; that's the intent and the means to change).
As for 'designing out crime', yes, that should be an aim - though again the record of actual developments designed to socially guide communities is decidedly patchy. Simply aim for functionality as a starting point: if you give people what they want then they will use it. Beyond that, yes: if people cherish something then they will take more care of it. Again, that may need an extra initial investment but will be worth it, which is a point to be put to developers. It can be done but it needs those in charge to have a little more confidence and trust in others and to guide with a light touch. That's a culture change many will find hard to adapt to.
There's also the problem that my timescale for making the whole place habitable didn't really want a 6-12 month delay whilst I dealt with planning first.
Louisiana Purchase?
The paradox is that America's best leverage for negotiating a peace deal is also why it might not want to. Gas. Ukraine has just terminated its pipeline agreement with Russia. There is no straightforward substitute.
So if as a result of an American-negotiated peace deal, the gas pipeline reopens, it is win-win. Russia can sell more gas, especially after sanctions are lifted, and Ukraine gets commission on gas passing through the pipeline, which is most of it.
The loser, ironically, might be the USA which is currently the leading gas exporter, and could do without Russia reducing the price of gas and taking back customers.
So which way will Trump jump?
People who want to join the EU tend to be old fashioned imperialist types who want a presence on the “world stage” and to “punch above our weight” (that may or may not be you). There is another choice: metaphorically retire to our favourite comfy chair and only engage in the world when we have to. Let someone else have a go.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
https://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/news/banking-bonuses-twitter-x-deal
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
When I was working there over a decade ago they were pinning their hopes on X760 and X761 saving the brand as there were plenty in JLR who would have happily canned Jaguars and just made more Land Rovers. Before that it was the X200/X350 they pinned their hopes on.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/formula-1-announces-multi-year-extension-with-the-belgian-grand-prix.7FR5zJUgLAB7htZrRQUB07
The aggressors net gained an area the size of Luxembourg last year - at the cost of 400,000 men, tens of thousands of machines, a couple of hundred billion dollars, interest rates at 21%, mass emigration of anyone who can find a way to get their money out, and a cementing of their position as an international pariah country with increasing sanctions.
https://thejudge13.com/2025/01/07/clash-martin-brundle-vs-elon-musk/
https://x.com/chrismedlandf1/status/1876926169385185668
The same type of Jag they were throwing around car parks and disused land and smashing to pieces filming "blags" in The Sweeney.
So seeing Spa going alternate years is my fault I suppose.
Although I'd agree for those who charge 7.5% on the cost of the build.
History - especially Russian history - will not be kind to Putin.
Another 1,660 of Russia's/North Korea's finest fed into the meat grinder yesterday. The increment to Russia's forces by the North Korean forces joining them have amounted to barely a week worth of casualties in the SMO. Who can he tap up next for willing martyrs?
The company was valued at $350 Billion, recently, a result of a recent private share sale round. SpaceX organises these, yearly, to allow employees to sell shares.
Musk own 78%+ of voting stock and 54% of the overall stock.
It is doubtful he would ever sell. In fact, in recent years, he has been buying shares back.
The potential sale would be of the Starlink LEO constellation. If broken out and sold separately, it could well IPO, on its own for hundreds of billions.
Today's models would emerge like slices of salami, the building intact!
That shade of Green is more a seventies Capri or Austin 1100 to me.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
“I like Twitter/X and it has served F1, Sky, me and those around me well for a while...But Elon Musk is such a daily, globally meddling prick that I feel the need to go elsewhere.”
But with Musk now in a global driving seat, not only controlling much of the flow information and future space travel, but also potentially directing the.world's largest military and economy to take over a territory for his electric car metals, it turns out that he was very much right.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
‘It what mom would have wanted’
Going off Topic, sorry. But i’m not on any banned subject of big grooming gang clear blue water policy between Labour and Conservative, dominating UK politics this week and some time to come. Though in immigration policy - which is surely a different subject than the banned one - we all suspect, regardless of dismal 13 year record on immigration, going into 3rd May 2029 promising 0% immigration from countries with alien medieval culture is now huge election vote winner for Conservatives?
When Elon Musk has bought Liverpool FC franchise (paying over the odds or maybe current owners keen to take his money) what will he change the clubs name to? Will they play some home games stateside? Is he the sort to go into dressing room for pep talks, or interfere in team selection? We don’t really know much about Elon Musk in UK, but through his ownership of Liverpool FC we will learn a lot more.
His team plays again tonight, will they provide yet more evidence they are becoming tired and leggy, without press and movement off ball their performances will be nothing special second half of season? 🤔
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Perhaps when he reflects on this we might see another 180 degree shift in his world view.
Suspect every town lost numerous notable buildings on the whim of a land owner wanting rid of something.
Yesterday, I was looking at an image of a stunning large barn in the fens, said to be owned by Cromwell (on his farm) where he trained some of his soldiers. Despite a preservation order, the land owner knocked it down one morning in the early 60s, as he wanted to build on it. No action taken. This town then lost an historical landmark.
We should preserve our beautiful historic buildings, they are a part of us.
Ego.
At least I hope they do not blame the ball as Arteta did for Arsenal losing last night
Utterly bizarre
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
Clearly they've done some market research (or one would hope they have) that they think backs this up, but this can be fallible.
I think, fundamentally, leadership were simply embarrassed by the pale, male and stale and older client base - who couldn't afford the price point of the new cars anyway, but were attached to the old brand - so decided to go "all in" in pissing them off in the hope the noise and controversy from the backlash would boost the hits and marketing and impress their target audience.
It's another way that social media divides us.
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.