Doesn't say he's commemorated by the Daylight Inn in Petts Wood (where he had lived) near Orpington - rather nice bit of mock Tudor like much in that 1920s-30s suburb.
So, back on topic, what does Starmer do with Powell now? Bring her back into the Cabinet weeks after he sacked her for not being very good? Ignore her?
Not going to be easy with comments like this: "We must give a stronger sense of our purpose, whose side we are on and of our Labour values and beliefs,' she said.
'People feel that this government is not being bold enough in delivering the kind of change we promised.'
And she thinks she is being supportive at this point!
Speaking truth to power is being supportive.
In my experience "power" doesn't often see it that way!
Ridiculous that we've accepted these into service.
Ajax AFV – Non-Denial, Denial
https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2025/10/24/ajax-afv-non-denial-denial/ Defence Eye has heard that as part of the plan to now allocate the Ares armoured personnel carrier to former Warrior-equipped armoured infantry battalions, there was a series of exercises undertaken this Summer, mainly June/July (August tends to be block leave). And one piece of news from several observers of these exercises/trials was that there was a very high prevalence of tinnitus, serious headaches and loss of balance/motion issues, with some hospitalisations, at least for checks and observation...
What Ukraine has shown is that there is a need for
1) Armoured wheeled vehicles. Interestingly, the extremely obsolete Saracen has been popular as a light vehicle behind the front lines - drone and small arms resistant 2) Tracked lightly armoured to act as missile carriers. 3) Massively armoured infantry assault vehicles - something like the Israeli Namer.
Ajax is silly compromise.
Not so much massively armoured, as able to weather multiple small FOV drone strikes. Which isn't exactly the same thing.
Nope - heavily armoured. Namer, being armoured to MBT level, can survive even serious missile strikes.
This is for actually attacking the enemy positions, head on.
The Ukrainians have built some Infantry Assault vehicles out of tanks - which are following the history of the development of Namer. They started with old T-55s and worked their way to more and more elaborate conversions.
So, back on topic, what does Starmer do with Powell now? Bring her back into the Cabinet weeks after he sacked her for not being very good? Ignore her?
Not going to be easy with comments like this: "We must give a stronger sense of our purpose, whose side we are on and of our Labour values and beliefs,' she said.
'People feel that this government is not being bold enough in delivering the kind of change we promised.'
And she thinks she is being supportive at this point!
Speaking truth to power is being supportive.
In my experience "power" doesn't often see it that way!
True, that. Actually I know nothing about the lady.
If true, this makes the story somehow even worse for the government.
If it's true that the grey tracksuit he's wearing is the prison issue garb, then the human error becomes more precise, because someone in authority didn't cause him to get changed into outside civvy wear.
The thing with Sunak as well not only didn't it work out for him as PM, I think he knows it isn't a job for him and really hated it by the end. Thus unlike say a Boris who was always looking ways to engineer his way back into front line politics, that isn't going to be Sunak.
He could be polishing his CV for a seat in the Lords.
Also the Tory Party could conceivably be desperate to avoid a by-election. Last election it was almost half Tory, quarter Labour, sixth Reform. So ...
If Richmondshire falls then it is over for the Tories. May as well put the lights out.
Richmond would almost certainly be a straight choice between Tory and Reform if there was a by election in the next few months on current polls and Rishi left the Commons.
In which case the Tories would ironically be in the same position as Plaid were in Caerphilly last week, hoping to squeeze Labour, LD and Green votes to beat Reform
“But there was no energy, no ideas and he didn’t have any answers to our questions. It was really very damaging.”
I'm reminded of Basil Fawlty to the moaning guest.
It's the UK in a low growth era with maxed out public finances. What do they expect ... milk and honey and thundering herds of wildebeest?
A plan isn't that much to ask....
They don't need a plan. They need a sustained economic upswing.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing ..
Pretty much. Starmer is never going to inspire or thrill. He needs some luck on the £££. Perhaps he used it all up as LOTO with Johnson and Truss blowing up the Cons.
Ridiculous that we've accepted these into service.
Ajax AFV – Non-Denial, Denial
https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2025/10/24/ajax-afv-non-denial-denial/ Defence Eye has heard that as part of the plan to now allocate the Ares armoured personnel carrier to former Warrior-equipped armoured infantry battalions, there was a series of exercises undertaken this Summer, mainly June/July (August tends to be block leave). And one piece of news from several observers of these exercises/trials was that there was a very high prevalence of tinnitus, serious headaches and loss of balance/motion issues, with some hospitalisations, at least for checks and observation...
What Ukraine has shown is that there is a need for
1) Armoured wheeled vehicles. Interestingly, the extremely obsolete Saracen has been popular as a light vehicle behind the front lines - drone and small arms resistant 2) Tracked lightly armoured to act as missile carriers. 3) Massively armoured infantry assault vehicles - something like the Israeli Namer.
Ajax is silly compromise.
Not so much massively armoured, as able to weather multiple small FOV drone strikes. Which isn't exactly the same thing.
Nope - heavily armoured. Namer, being armoured to MBT level, can survive even serious missile strikes.
This is for actually attacking the enemy positions, head on.
The Ukrainians have built some Infantry Assault vehicles out of tanks - which are following the history of the development of Namer. They started with old T-55s and worked their way to more and more elaborate conversions.
I thought one of the problems faced by armoured vehicles against FPV drones was that the drones can be targeted accurately at the tracks, immobilising the vehicle, and then repeated drone attacks can finish it off at their leisure.
Without a short-range defence against drones, or suppression of drone command points, mobility near the front line is exceptionally difficult.
Is he trying to challenge Goerge Osborne for the number of jobs done simultaneously by a former senior government minister?
At least Rishi has not buzzed off to a Californian hedge fund as many predicted.
I don't quite see what it is in it for him to stay as a backbench MP. If I understand correctly all these jobs he has taken on he donates the money to charity.
He's got more money than he knows what to do with. What he needs in his life is purpose and relevance. Being PM and leading the UK back to sanity sadly (both for him and us) really didn't work out. What does he do now? I'm not sure he has found the answer yet.
It speaks well of him that he's willing to try, but it doesn't speak well of his Premiership that he still hasn't found out. I'm not sure increased numeracy in youth is the answer to the country's problems.
I am aware of the Sumption/Starkey belief that bureaucracy and judiciary have strayed too far into politics and the state should be rolled back. I am aware of the Polanski/Greens belief that welding the green cause to progressive politics will provide the impetus for a solarpunk future. I think Badenoch is weaning herself off culture war 1.0 (trans) and refocussing on low-tax-small-state stuff and culture war 2.0 (immigration), so I can get a grip on that. Reform is auslander raus and in-my-head-im-American. But I still don't get a bead on Labour, and they seem to veer from Blairism to Reform-lite to pro-Europeanism to 70s leftie stuff, with no coherent read-through. Somebody needs to invent a 2020s left-wing theory, and neither Starmer nor Corbyn can do it. ☹️
Wilson's two Hungarian academic economist advisors, Nicholas Kaldor and Thomas Balogh were known in Whitehall as Buddha and Pest. And bald rotund Kaldor was a dead ringer of those Buddha statuettes
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Ridiculous that we've accepted these into service.
Ajax AFV – Non-Denial, Denial
https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2025/10/24/ajax-afv-non-denial-denial/ Defence Eye has heard that as part of the plan to now allocate the Ares armoured personnel carrier to former Warrior-equipped armoured infantry battalions, there was a series of exercises undertaken this Summer, mainly June/July (August tends to be block leave). And one piece of news from several observers of these exercises/trials was that there was a very high prevalence of tinnitus, serious headaches and loss of balance/motion issues, with some hospitalisations, at least for checks and observation...
What Ukraine has shown is that there is a need for
1) Armoured wheeled vehicles. Interestingly, the extremely obsolete Saracen has been popular as a light vehicle behind the front lines - drone and small arms resistant 2) Tracked lightly armoured to act as missile carriers. 3) Massively armoured infantry assault vehicles - something like the Israeli Namer.
Ajax is silly compromise.
Not so much massively armoured, as able to weather multiple small FOV drone strikes. Which isn't exactly the same thing.
Nope - heavily armoured. Namer, being armoured to MBT level, can survive even serious missile strikes.
This is for actually attacking the enemy positions, head on.
The Ukrainians have built some Infantry Assault vehicles out of tanks - which are following the history of the development of Namer. They started with old T-55s and worked their way to more and more elaborate conversions.
I thought one of the problems faced by armoured vehicles against FPV drones was that the drones can be targeted accurately at the tracks, immobilising the vehicle, and then repeated drone attacks can finish it off at their leisure.
Without a short-range defence against drones, or suppression of drone command points, mobility near the front line is exceptionally difficult.
Namer is already fitted with active defence systems. Given that these are designed to be effective against serious missiles, drones would be a light snack.
No armoured vehicle has ever been immune to attack.
If anybody wants to read the massive ouevre that is former PBer @SeanT's collective writings for the Telegraph, please be prepared to gaze in awe and wonder at the following link.
Ridiculous that we've accepted these into service.
Ajax AFV – Non-Denial, Denial
https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2025/10/24/ajax-afv-non-denial-denial/ Defence Eye has heard that as part of the plan to now allocate the Ares armoured personnel carrier to former Warrior-equipped armoured infantry battalions, there was a series of exercises undertaken this Summer, mainly June/July (August tends to be block leave). And one piece of news from several observers of these exercises/trials was that there was a very high prevalence of tinnitus, serious headaches and loss of balance/motion issues, with some hospitalisations, at least for checks and observation...
What Ukraine has shown is that there is a need for
1) Armoured wheeled vehicles. Interestingly, the extremely obsolete Saracen has been popular as a light vehicle behind the front lines - drone and small arms resistant 2) Tracked lightly armoured to act as missile carriers. 3) Massively armoured infantry assault vehicles - something like the Israeli Namer.
Ajax is silly compromise.
Not so much massively armoured, as able to weather multiple small FOV drone strikes. Which isn't exactly the same thing.
Nope - heavily armoured. Namer, being armoured to MBT level, can survive even serious missile strikes.
This is for actually attacking the enemy positions, head on.
The Ukrainians have built some Infantry Assault vehicles out of tanks - which are following the history of the development of Namer. They started with old T-55s and worked their way to more and more elaborate conversions.
I thought one of the problems faced by armoured vehicles against FPV drones was that the drones can be targeted accurately at the tracks, immobilising the vehicle, and then repeated drone attacks can finish it off at their leisure.
Without a short-range defence against drones, or suppression of drone command points, mobility near the front line is exceptionally difficult.
Namer is already fitted with active defence systems. Given that these are designed to be effective against serious missiles, drones would be a light snack.
No armoured vehicle has ever been immune to attack.
How many shots does the system carry? Presumably enough to cover anything but the worst mass attack?
And they never go back at all in Arizona. Except in some parts of the State, where they do have Daylight Savings Time, which doesn't cause any confusion at all. No sir.
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Yeah, but US presidential primaries always have a ton of people who float the idea of running to see how it goes down and who subsequently either don't bother to run because they conclude it would be futile or else do very badly and quickly drop out. I don't expect that primary voters will have much enthusiasm for a Harris rerun.
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then but had lost by by a narrower margin in 1960 to an icon like JFK than Harris managed to do to Donald Trump in 2024
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
And they never go back at all in Arizona. Except in some parts of the State, where they do have Daylight Savings Time, which doesn't cause any confusion at all. No sir.
And they never go back at all in Arizona. Except in some parts of the State, where they do have Daylight Savings Time, which doesn't cause any confusion at all. No sir.
Perhaps they should resolve their differences pacifically?
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
Yes, but that's even rarer than your scenario. Only Grover Cleveland had won two non-consecutive elections before (and he won the popular vote three times).
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
Yes, but that's even rarer than your scenario. Only Grover Cleveland had won two non-consecutive elections before (and he won the popular vote three times).
Maybe but Trump had at least proved he could win a presidential election outright before he ran again, unlike Harris, as had Cleveland
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
Grover Cleveland did the same.
Won in 1884 at his first attempt. Lost to Harrison in 1888. Returned and won again in 1892.
Timothy Mellon, a reclusive billionaire and a major financial backer of President Trump, is the anonymous private donor who gave $130 million to the U.S. government to help pay troops during the shutdown, according to two people familiar with the matter.
NY Times
He's not going to be a billionaire for long if this shutdown continues much longer...
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
Grover Cleveland did the same.
Won in 1884 at his first attempt. Lost to Harrison in 1888. Returned and won again in 1892.
Indeed, politics for politicians is a combat sport a bit like boxing, the more you have proved you can win, the more likely you will get the chance to fight another round/election
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
Yes, but that's even rarer than your scenario. Only Grover Cleveland had won two non-consecutive elections before (and he won the popular vote three times).
Maybe but Trump had at least proved he could win a presidential election outright before he ran again, unlike Harris, as had Cleveland
Yes, but do you know who the last defeated incumbent to get their party's nomination and run again afterwards was?
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
Yes, but that's even rarer than your scenario. Only Grover Cleveland had won two non-consecutive elections before (and he won the popular vote three times).
Maybe but Trump had at least proved he could win a presidential election outright before he ran again, unlike Harris, as had Cleveland
Yes, but do you know who the last defeated incumbent to get their party's nomination and run again afterwards was?
It was actually Cleveland...
Cleveland had won before in 1884 though, like Trump, even though he lost in 1888 and then ran and won again in 1892
The Democrats are really searching for an answer for Trump at the moment. I'm not quite sure who that is, but what I do know is it's not Kamala Harris.
I quite like Harris, and I think a lot of the criticism of her is rather overblown. She was, unquestionably, dealt a very bad hand and in 2024 she played it... broadly as well as she could have done, I think. But her big issue is her seeming inability to shift this incredibly tortured way of communicating. She looked at the start of the 2024 campaign like she was finally shaking it off, only to revert more and more to type as the election approached. She fired up Democrats, but it wasn't enough in an election where swing voters were feeling helpless and casting around for solutions - she couldn't speak to those people. I see nothing to suggest she's suddenly learned how to do so.
This, of course, is another lie - they have no such immunity - but it is a very dangerous one.
Stephen Miller on Fox threatens to arrest JB Pritzker for "seditious conspiracy" and says, "to all ICE officers: you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop or obstruct you is committing a felony." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1981816700627554547
Does Kemi still see ICE as a model ?
Don't they?
In my recollection American Police have general immunity in the conduct of their duties, which is a major issue.
I imagine ICE might have similar.
I think they have qualified immunity, which means they cannot be individually sued by individuals for an act committed on duty.
They do not have immunity from criminal prosecution if they break the law. Exhibit A - the officer who murdered George Floyd.
So if an ICE unit take somebody who should not be taken, without the lawful authority of the state governor or a judge, I think they would still be up before a judge on a charge of kidnapping.
Indeed, so they do have qualified immunity, so its not wrong to say they have immunity, albeit a qualified and not blanket one.
I would prefer to see it repealed and abolished, but they do have it, unfortunately.
It is wrong to say they have ‘federal immunity,’ which outside the fantasies of Trump’s Supreme Court regarding the office of the President is not a concept in American law.
Qualified immunity is a federal law, underpinned by SCOTUS.
No, it isn't. It's a doctrine introduced by the court in the 60s, and further expanded by them in the last couple of decades. There's no underlying statute.
The US is a Common Law nation, like the UK. There does not need to be an underlying statute for it to be the law.
Case law, as determined by the courts, means that it is the law. I wish it weren't, but it is.
It's not based in common law either. It's a novel constitutional doctrine created from thin air.
The Democrats are really searching for an answer for Trump at the moment. I'm not quite sure who that is, but what I do know is it's not Kamala Harris.
I quite like Harris, and I think a lot of the criticism of her is rather overblown. She was, unquestionably, dealt a very bad hand and in 2024 she played it... broadly as well as she could have done, I think. But her big issue is her seeming inability to shift this incredibly tortured way of communicating. She looked at the start of the 2024 campaign like she was finally shaking it off, only to revert more and more to type as the election approached. She fired up Democrats, but it wasn't enough in an election where swing voters were feeling helpless and casting around for solutions - she couldn't speak to those people. I see nothing to suggest she's suddenly learned how to do so.
To put it more simply - Harris is a B- politician at national level.
The Democrats are really searching for an answer for Trump at the moment. I'm not quite sure who that is, but what I do know is it's not Kamala Harris.
I quite like Harris, and I think a lot of the criticism of her is rather overblown. She was, unquestionably, dealt a very bad hand and in 2024 she played it... broadly as well as she could have done, I think. But her big issue is her seeming inability to shift this incredibly tortured way of communicating. She looked at the start of the 2024 campaign like she was finally shaking it off, only to revert more and more to type as the election approached. She fired up Democrats, but it wasn't enough in an election where swing voters were feeling helpless and casting around for solutions - she couldn't speak to those people. I see nothing to suggest she's suddenly learned how to do so.
Indeed, Harris had absolutely no ability to connect with working class and lower middle class voters. She lost middle income voters earning from $30,000 to $100,000 to Trump while Biden had beaten Trump with those voters in 2020.
She even only scraped home with the poorest voters with annual household incomes under $30,000 by just 4% over Trump.
The only group which really seemed to like Harris more than the average Democrat nominee were the rich and high earning fiscal conservatives, she got Liz Cheney to endorse and campaign with her and became the first Democrat presidential nominee in history to win voters earning over $100,000 a year. Indeed Harris won the richest by more than the poorest astonishingly, beating Trump by 5% amongst voters earning over $100,000 a year and by 6% amongst voters earning over $200,000 a year.
While that might still get her lots of invites to elite cocktail parties in California, NYC and DC it is not going to win back the rustbelt swing states the Democrats need to win the next election though
The Democrats are really searching for an answer for Trump at the moment. I'm not quite sure who that is, but what I do know is it's not Kamala Harris.
I quite like Harris, and I think a lot of the criticism of her is rather overblown. She was, unquestionably, dealt a very bad hand and in 2024 she played it... broadly as well as she could have done, I think. But her big issue is her seeming inability to shift this incredibly tortured way of communicating. She looked at the start of the 2024 campaign like she was finally shaking it off, only to revert more and more to type as the election approached. She fired up Democrats, but it wasn't enough in an election where swing voters were feeling helpless and casting around for solutions - she couldn't speak to those people. I see nothing to suggest she's suddenly learned how to do so.
To put it more simply - Harris is a B- politician at national level.
What the Democrats need is A*
Not sure they do, and what happens is kind of out of their hands.
Either any Democrat will win in 2028, or no Democrat will. There is unlikely to be much middle ground.
Smeakybpartial quote from talktv, but Labour have picked up on it. Pochin is surely right here, I mean the figures do back her up. Farage won’t condemn it, and he shouldn’t either
Nigel Farage needs to condemn this now, and urgently clarify whether Sarah Pochin’s views on race are welcome in his party.
1 Who/what does he actually want? It's much easier to list the politicians he doesn't like. 2 What is his biblical, yea unto the seventh generation, beef with Starmer? It can't just be that currygate didn't happen.
Ridiculous that we've accepted these into service.
Ajax AFV – Non-Denial, Denial
https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2025/10/24/ajax-afv-non-denial-denial/ Defence Eye has heard that as part of the plan to now allocate the Ares armoured personnel carrier to former Warrior-equipped armoured infantry battalions, there was a series of exercises undertaken this Summer, mainly June/July (August tends to be block leave). And one piece of news from several observers of these exercises/trials was that there was a very high prevalence of tinnitus, serious headaches and loss of balance/motion issues, with some hospitalisations, at least for checks and observation...
What Ukraine has shown is that there is a need for
1) Armoured wheeled vehicles. Interestingly, the extremely obsolete Saracen has been popular as a light vehicle behind the front lines - drone and small arms resistant 2) Tracked lightly armoured to act as missile carriers. 3) Massively armoured infantry assault vehicles - something like the Israeli Namer.
Ajax is silly compromise.
Not so much massively armoured, as able to weather multiple small FOV drone strikes. Which isn't exactly the same thing.
Nope - heavily armoured. Namer, being armoured to MBT level, can survive even serious missile strikes.
This is for actually attacking the enemy positions, head on.
The Ukrainians have built some Infantry Assault vehicles out of tanks - which are following the history of the development of Namer. They started with old T-55s and worked their way to more and more elaborate conversions.
I thought one of the problems faced by armoured vehicles against FPV drones was that the drones can be targeted accurately at the tracks, immobilising the vehicle, and then repeated drone attacks can finish it off at their leisure.
Without a short-range defence against drones, or suppression of drone command points, mobility near the front line is exceptionally difficult.
Namer is already fitted with active defence systems. Given that these are designed to be effective against serious missiles, drones would be a light snack.
No armoured vehicle has ever been immune to attack.
From the recent RUSI report:
...One Ukrainian tank platoon observed by the author had been operating four captured Russian tanks for over a year, and while they conceded that they would be hit between two and 12 times per operation, the vehicles were still in good condition, even if their armour had to be regularly replaced.
Ukrainians emphasise mobility, endurance and repairability as critical attributes for armour. In contrast, they generally perceive Western tanks as overly heavy and hard to repair. Crews may appreciate their survivability, but commanders find their availability diminishes quickly. Battle damage to armour is considered an inevitable consequence of its employment. As a result, the speed at which it can be recovered and repaired is critical to maintaining the tempo of operations. Where repair is likely to be slow and difficult, commanders struggle to find use cases that justify exposing their armour...
So, back on topic, what does Starmer do with Powell now? Bring her back into the Cabinet weeks after he sacked her for not being very good? Ignore her?
Not going to be easy with comments like this: "We must give a stronger sense of our purpose, whose side we are on and of our Labour values and beliefs,' she said.
'People feel that this government is not being bold enough in delivering the kind of change we promised.'
And she thinks she is being supportive at this point!
1 Who/what does he actually want? It's much easier to list the politicians he doesn't like. 2 What is his biblical, yea unto the seventh generation, beef with Starmer? It can't just be that currygate didn't happen.
It is so much easier to be negative than constructive. Let's face it being negative about the current crop of politicians is not hard. They're useless. Finding a constructive way ahead is the hard bit. I see almost no sign that Hodges has any interest in this.
Ridiculous that we've accepted these into service.
Ajax AFV – Non-Denial, Denial
https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2025/10/24/ajax-afv-non-denial-denial/ Defence Eye has heard that as part of the plan to now allocate the Ares armoured personnel carrier to former Warrior-equipped armoured infantry battalions, there was a series of exercises undertaken this Summer, mainly June/July (August tends to be block leave). And one piece of news from several observers of these exercises/trials was that there was a very high prevalence of tinnitus, serious headaches and loss of balance/motion issues, with some hospitalisations, at least for checks and observation...
What Ukraine has shown is that there is a need for
1) Armoured wheeled vehicles. Interestingly, the extremely obsolete Saracen has been popular as a light vehicle behind the front lines - drone and small arms resistant 2) Tracked lightly armoured to act as missile carriers. 3) Massively armoured infantry assault vehicles - something like the Israeli Namer.
Ajax is silly compromise.
There isn't a need for any of that. Once people get over the channel in such numbers that they need missiles firing at them, we've lost.
The Democrats are really searching for an answer for Trump at the moment. I'm not quite sure who that is, but what I do know is it's not Kamala Harris.
I quite like Harris, and I think a lot of the criticism of her is rather overblown. She was, unquestionably, dealt a very bad hand and in 2024 she played it... broadly as well as she could have done, I think. But her big issue is her seeming inability to shift this incredibly tortured way of communicating. She looked at the start of the 2024 campaign like she was finally shaking it off, only to revert more and more to type as the election approached. She fired up Democrats, but it wasn't enough in an election where swing voters were feeling helpless and casting around for solutions - she couldn't speak to those people. I see nothing to suggest she's suddenly learned how to do so.
To put it more simply - Harris is a B- politician at national level.
What the Democrats need is A*
Not sure they do, and what happens is kind of out of their hands.
Either any Democrat will win in 2028, or no Democrat will. There is unlikely to be much middle ground.
I really don't think its as simple as that. Like here, politicians who want to lead have to develop a narrative, a way of explaining how and why things are going to get better despite the difficult path that must be taken. Trump created a narrative. It was lies and delusions but it was persuasive. Any Democrat that hopes to win needs a counter narrative. At the moment only Newsom offers that. And even he has a bit to go.
Smeakybpartial quote from talktv, but Labour have picked up on it. Pochin is surely right here, I mean the figures do back her up. Farage won’t condemn it, and he shouldn’t either
Nigel Farage needs to condemn this now, and urgently clarify whether Sarah Pochin’s views on race are welcome in his party.
I'd be interested in an advertiser's/marketers view on this. I suspect there are some hard stats behind the diversity we see in adverts - the most valuable customers tend to be in their 20s/30s ; Gen Z/Millenials with their woke views on stuff like race and trans. Does that offset the unease it generates in boomers?
Stuart in London seems to be asking for white DEI hires... and the fact he recognised the character in that ad as "Nigel" was quite memeable too.
Ridiculous that we've accepted these into service.
Ajax AFV – Non-Denial, Denial
https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2025/10/24/ajax-afv-non-denial-denial/ Defence Eye has heard that as part of the plan to now allocate the Ares armoured personnel carrier to former Warrior-equipped armoured infantry battalions, there was a series of exercises undertaken this Summer, mainly June/July (August tends to be block leave). And one piece of news from several observers of these exercises/trials was that there was a very high prevalence of tinnitus, serious headaches and loss of balance/motion issues, with some hospitalisations, at least for checks and observation...
What Ukraine has shown is that there is a need for
1) Armoured wheeled vehicles. Interestingly, the extremely obsolete Saracen has been popular as a light vehicle behind the front lines - drone and small arms resistant 2) Tracked lightly armoured to act as missile carriers. 3) Massively armoured infantry assault vehicles - something like the Israeli Namer.
Ajax is silly compromise.
Not so much massively armoured, as able to weather multiple small FOV drone strikes. Which isn't exactly the same thing.
Nope - heavily armoured. Namer, being armoured to MBT level, can survive even serious missile strikes.
This is for actually attacking the enemy positions, head on.
The Ukrainians have built some Infantry Assault vehicles out of tanks - which are following the history of the development of Namer. They started with old T-55s and worked their way to more and more elaborate conversions.
I thought one of the problems faced by armoured vehicles against FPV drones was that the drones can be targeted accurately at the tracks, immobilising the vehicle, and then repeated drone attacks can finish it off at their leisure.
Without a short-range defence against drones, or suppression of drone command points, mobility near the front line is exceptionally difficult.
Namer is already fitted with active defence systems. Given that these are designed to be effective against serious missiles, drones would be a light snack.
No armoured vehicle has ever been immune to attack.
From the recent RUSI report:
...One Ukrainian tank platoon observed by the author had been operating four captured Russian tanks for over a year, and while they conceded that they would be hit between two and 12 times per operation, the vehicles were still in good condition, even if their armour had to be regularly replaced.
Ukrainians emphasise mobility, endurance and repairability as critical attributes for armour. In contrast, they generally perceive Western tanks as overly heavy and hard to repair. Crews may appreciate their survivability, but commanders find their availability diminishes quickly. Battle damage to armour is considered an inevitable consequence of its employment. As a result, the speed at which it can be recovered and repaired is critical to maintaining the tempo of operations. Where repair is likely to be slow and difficult, commanders struggle to find use cases that justify exposing their armour...
Similarly, a US vet. who has spent the last three years in Ukraine.
I’ve seen it firsthand over the last three and a half years training Ukrainian soldiers as a volunteer combat advisor/trainer across multiple fronts.
What used to be decided by armour, artillery, and speed is now dictated by what happens above your head. Drones, loitering munitions, and constant aerial reconnaissance have redefined how we fight, move, and survive.
No NATO army can realistically revise its manoeuvre doctrine until it achieves real dominance in air defence and counter-drone warfare. I’ve watched entire Ukrainian units learn to adapt under constant drone threat—changing routes, dispersing formations, even halting movement entirely just to avoid being spotted. In this environment, no tank, no infantry column, and no convoy can operate freely without protection from the air.
The lesson is clear: before manoeuvre warfare can evolve, we must first reclaim freedom of movement under the sky. NATO must invest heavily in short-, medium-, and long-range air defence systems and make counter-drone training part of every combat unit’s core curriculum.
Once we can neutralize aerial threats at will, only then can we truly test the future of combined arms tactics and determine whether heavy armour still has a meaningful role...
Smeakybpartial quote from talktv, but Labour have picked up on it. Pochin is surely right here, I mean the figures do back her up. Farage won’t condemn it, and he shouldn’t either
Nigel Farage needs to condemn this now, and urgently clarify whether Sarah Pochin’s views on race are welcome in his party.
I'd be interested in an advertiser's/marketers view on this. I suspect there are some hard stats behind the diversity we see in adverts - the most valuable customers tend to be in their 20s/30s ; Gen Z/Millenials with their woke views on stuff like race and trans. Does that offset the unease it generates in boomers?
Stuart in London seems to be asking for white DEI hires... and his accidental description of Farage was quite memeable too.
I thought it was just that if you only have white people in your adverts you'll get called racist so everyone has non-white people in which results in the ridiculous statistics.
Smeakybpartial quote from talktv, but Labour have picked up on it. Pochin is surely right here, I mean the figures do back her up. Farage won’t condemn it, and he shouldn’t either
Nigel Farage needs to condemn this now, and urgently clarify whether Sarah Pochin’s views on race are welcome in his party.
I'd be interested in an advertiser's/marketers view on this. I suspect there are some hard stats behind the diversity we see in adverts - the most valuable customers tend to be in their 20s/30s ; Gen Z/Millenials with their woke views on stuff like race and trans. Does that offset the unease it generates in boomers?
Stuart in London seems to be asking for white DEI hires... and the fact he recognised the character in that ad as "Nigel" was quite memeable too.
How many young people actually watch adverts though? They certainly don't sit through minutes of them on conventional TV.
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Indeed, the only losing Presidential nominee for their party who came back to win again since WW2 was Nixon and even he waited 8 years until running again. He ran for California governor in 1962 narrowly losing then
Errr...Donald Trump?
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Trump won in 2016 on his first attempt so a different scenario, even if he lost his re election bid and then came back to win
Yes, but that's even rarer than your scenario. Only Grover Cleveland had won two non-consecutive elections before (and he won the popular vote three times).
Maybe but Trump had at least proved he could win a presidential election outright before he ran again, unlike Harris, as had Cleveland
Yes, but do you know who the last defeated incumbent to get their party's nomination and run again afterwards was?
It was actually Cleveland...
Cleveland had won before in 1884 though, like Trump, even though he lost in 1888 and then ran and won again in 1892
Yes, I know. The point being that since then no fewer than five presidents (Taft, Hoover, Carter, Bush Sr and Trump) have been eligible to run again after a defeat and only one has actually done so.
And Trump is a special case because of the widespread corruption he introduced into the Republican Party and the electorate via both blatant rigging of votes within the Republican organisation (removing anyone who dared to point out he lost in 2020 by a huge margin and replacing them with sycophants who claimed otherwise) and his control of the media (does anyone think he would have won if Twitter had been reporting the news accurately)?
The point therefore being, contrary to your assertion, people do not go back to proven winners. Trump apart, they shy away from proven losers.
Cleveland was an exception for one very good reason - he won the popular vote in every election he fought, losing to Harrison by a fluke of the electoral college in the middle. But since then, nothing.
Smeakybpartial quote from talktv, but Labour have picked up on it. Pochin is surely right here, I mean the figures do back her up. Farage won’t condemn it, and he shouldn’t either
Nigel Farage needs to condemn this now, and urgently clarify whether Sarah Pochin’s views on race are welcome in his party.
I'd be interested in an advertiser's/marketers view on this. I suspect there are some hard stats behind the diversity we see in adverts - the most valuable customers tend to be in their 20s/30s ; Gen Z/Millenials with their woke views on stuff like race and trans. Does that offset the unease it generates in boomers?
Stuart in London seems to be asking for white DEI hires... and his accidental description of Farage was quite memeable too.
I thought it was just that if you only have white people in your adverts you'll get called racist so everyone has non-white people in which results in the ridiculous statistics.
Yes, that's my point. I don't think there is any advertising standard that means you have to include non-white people, so what you see on the telly just reflects what the advertiser thinks is the most likely to do best for them in sales.
Pretty simple really. If some firm wants to have a whites only policy in their adverts then good luck to them - they'll need it because their target demographic is going to be typically older and poorer, which in my (limited) experience isn't exactly what you should be aiming for. We did used to put old white folk on adverts for binoculars and knee-length waterproofs, come to think of it...
The Democrats are really searching for an answer for Trump at the moment. I'm not quite sure who that is, but what I do know is it's not Kamala Harris.
I quite like Harris, and I think a lot of the criticism of her is rather overblown. She was, unquestionably, dealt a very bad hand and in 2024 she played it... broadly as well as she could have done, I think. But her big issue is her seeming inability to shift this incredibly tortured way of communicating. She looked at the start of the 2024 campaign like she was finally shaking it off, only to revert more and more to type as the election approached. She fired up Democrats, but it wasn't enough in an election where swing voters were feeling helpless and casting around for solutions - she couldn't speak to those people. I see nothing to suggest she's suddenly learned how to do so.
To put it more simply - Harris is a B- politician at national level.
What the Democrats need is A*
Buttigieg is probably their best bet, though if the approval rating of the Trump and Vance administration remains under 40% still by 2028 even AOC could win
She has had two chances now and fucked up twice. She should have taken the Burnham route and become Governor of California, which she would have been adequate at. You can't run without an ability to explain and be a teacher, and she doesn't have that.
Smeakybpartial quote from talktv, but Labour have picked up on it. Pochin is surely right here, I mean the figures do back her up. Farage won’t condemn it, and he shouldn’t either
Nigel Farage needs to condemn this now, and urgently clarify whether Sarah Pochin’s views on race are welcome in his party.
I'd be interested in an advertiser's/marketers view on this. I suspect there are some hard stats behind the diversity we see in adverts - the most valuable customers tend to be in their 20s/30s ; Gen Z/Millenials with their woke views on stuff like race and trans. Does that offset the unease it generates in boomers?
Stuart in London seems to be asking for white DEI hires... and his accidental description of Farage was quite memeable too.
I thought it was just that if you only have white people in your adverts you'll get called racist so everyone has non-white people in which results in the ridiculous statistics.
Yes, that's my point. I don't think there is any advertising standard that means you have to include non-white people, so what you see on the telly just reflects what the advertiser thinks is the most likely to do best for them in sales.
Pretty simple really. If some firm wants to have a whites only policy in their adverts then good luck to them - they'll need it because their target demographic is going to be typically older and poorer, which in my (limited) experience isn't exactly what you should be aiming for. We did used to put old white folk on adverts for binoculars and knee-length waterproofs, come to think of it...
Our household resembles a TV ad. White man, Asian woman, cute dog.
Pathetic turnout but another bad day for Starmer as Labour members back Burnham’s preferred candidate Lucy Powell over his preferred candidate Bridget Philippson
No evidence that Starmer preferred either of them. None of this makes a difference to Starmer's standing. In some ways things are looking up for him. Farage is looking sleazy and flakey and Kemi is beyond doubt a no-hoper.
So a perfect time for a Starmer reset which he needs and of all the leaders he's the one who holds the stage
How many resets does a Prime Minister need in a week?
Just when Starmer demonstrates his facile incompetence, Boris Johnson rocks up to the COVID Inquiry as a reminder that things could be even worse.
I expect the median voter would now bring back Boris as PM tomorrow. Heck, I expect the median voter would even bring back Rishi as PM tomorrow now
Starmer and Sunak are considered two cheeks of the same useless arse, and the median voter does not want a Johnson redux. You are wishcasting.
The median voter is now voting Reform
To an extent you have me there. But I would equally assume given the choice of Johnson or Brave Sir Nigel, Farage takes it by a country mile.
Caerphilly might question your Reform voting logic.
Caerphilly was fascinating. It does completely change the Reform narrative in my mind. Being the most popular party might turn out to be meaningless if you are also the most hated party. And Reform certainly sit in that strange spot in the political Venn Diagram right now.
Nice to see you around Richard.
What do they think about Rufford Ford down your way? And how are you finding your local Reform UK Councillors?
(I'm no fan, especially of the £75k official Council budget for flag-wagging, but they seem to me to be on 2 out of 10 rather than Kent's 0.5 out of 10.)
Afternoon old chap. Sorry not been around much. Driving back and forth to Aberdeen from Lincolnshire every week is taking its toll.
Rufford Ford is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. There were plenty of ways they could have dealt with it rather than closing it and I hope the County Council see some sense (I know that is a vain hope) and open it again. There are plenty of other ways they could deal with the anti-social behaviour and dangerous driving.
Reform in Lincolnshire seeme to have been fairly quiet compared to other counties. Something for which I am grateful. I am sure idiocy will appear at some point but there is nothing obvious yet that is impacting us on a day to day basis. I did agree with them scrapping the Flood and Water Management Scrutiny Committee and moving the powers to the Environment committee. the FWMSC was supposed to hold the water companies and environment agency to account but it met in private so public involvement was very difficult and it doesn't really seem to have achieved much in terms of getting improvements out of Anglian Water or the EA.
I agree that the flag stuff in Nottinghamshire is a pointless waste of money but at the same time they have abandoned the move away from the old offices which seems sensible given the new ones are not fit for purpose.
We shall see how things develop. I want them to fall over... just not in my county
With that mention of "flags" I nearly did a Pavlovian "Flag" not a Like !!
(I thought Dame Andrea had had more than that £75k extra for her "office assistants" budget.)
Comments
I don't want to disappoint you but ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/25/looking-forward-to-an-extra-hour-in-bed-on-sunday-time-to-thank-a-farsighted-builder-from-kent
Doesn't say he's commemorated by the Daylight Inn in Petts Wood (where he had lived) near Orpington - rather nice bit of mock Tudor like much in that 1920s-30s suburb.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Daylight+Inn/@51.3895786,0.0753853,3a,90y,253.8h,92.66t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1HGRhhCM9FSoo15EMIdAlw!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=-2.659114330648009&panoid=1HGRhhCM9FSoo15EMIdAlw&yaw=253.79689582911925!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x47d8ab9e104e5b35:0x553c7accaebad348!8m2!3d51.389446!4d0.0751809!16s/g/11bwdxpq40?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAyMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
This is for actually attacking the enemy positions, head on.
The Ukrainians have built some Infantry Assault vehicles out of tanks - which are following the history of the development of Namer. They started with old T-55s and worked their way to more and more elaborate conversions.
In which case the Tories would ironically be in the same position as Plaid were in Caerphilly last week, hoping to squeeze Labour, LD and Green votes to beat Reform
Without a short-range defence against drones, or suppression of drone command points, mobility near the front line is exceptionally difficult.
I am aware of the Sumption/Starkey belief that bureaucracy and judiciary have strayed too far into politics and the state should be rolled back. I am aware of the Polanski/Greens belief that welding the green cause to progressive politics will provide the impetus for a solarpunk future. I think Badenoch is weaning herself off culture war 1.0 (trans) and refocussing on low-tax-small-state stuff and culture war 2.0 (immigration), so I can get a grip on that. Reform is auslander raus and in-my-head-im-American. But I still don't get a bead on Labour, and they seem to veer from Blairism to Reform-lite to pro-Europeanism to 70s leftie stuff, with no coherent read-through. Somebody needs to invent a 2020s left-wing theory, and neither Starmer nor Corbyn can do it. ☹️
No armoured vehicle has ever been immune to attack.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/s/sa-se/sean-thomas/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WtD3NY9MzHg
And they never go back at all in Arizona. Except in some parts of the State, where they do have Daylight Savings Time, which doesn't cause any confusion at all. No sir.
"So bad, I was capable of losing to Trump"
Edit - it's worth noting even before then comparatively few losing nominees have come back to become President at a later stage. Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland are two that spring to mind. After that I am struggling.
Reagan and Bush Sr both mounted primary campaigns before being nominated later.
Won in 1884 at his first attempt.
Lost to Harrison in 1888.
Returned and won again in 1892.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15226433/dan-hodges-dom-cummings-conservative-party-kemi-badenoch.html
It was actually Cleveland...
I quite like Harris, and I think a lot of the criticism of her is rather overblown. She was, unquestionably, dealt a very bad hand and in 2024 she played it... broadly as well as she could have done, I think. But her big issue is her seeming inability to shift this incredibly tortured way of communicating. She looked at the start of the 2024 campaign like she was finally shaking it off, only to revert more and more to type as the election approached. She fired up Democrats, but it wasn't enough in an election where swing voters were feeling helpless and casting around for solutions - she couldn't speak to those people. I see nothing to suggest she's suddenly learned how to do so.
It's a novel constitutional doctrine created from thin air.
What the Democrats need is A*
She even only scraped home with the poorest voters with annual household incomes under $30,000 by just 4% over Trump.
The only group which really seemed to like Harris more than the average Democrat nominee were the rich and high earning fiscal conservatives, she got Liz Cheney to endorse and campaign with her and became the first Democrat presidential nominee in history to win voters earning over $100,000 a year. Indeed Harris won the richest by more than the poorest astonishingly, beating Trump by 5% amongst voters earning over $100,000 a year and by 6% amongst voters earning over $200,000 a year.
While that might still get her lots of invites to elite cocktail parties in California, NYC and DC it is not going to win back the rustbelt swing states the Democrats need to win the next election though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Irish_presidential_election#Results
Either any Democrat will win in 2028, or no Democrat will. There is unlikely to be much middle ground.
Nigel Farage needs to condemn this now, and urgently clarify whether Sarah Pochin’s views on race are welcome in his party.
https://x.com/labourpress/status/1982106185672314978?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
1 Who/what does he actually want? It's much easier to list the politicians he doesn't like.
2 What is his biblical, yea unto the seventh generation, beef with Starmer? It can't just be that currygate didn't happen.
...One Ukrainian tank platoon observed by the author had been operating four captured Russian tanks for over a year, and while they conceded that they would be hit between two and 12 times per operation, the vehicles were still in good condition, even if their armour had to be regularly replaced.
Ukrainians emphasise mobility, endurance and repairability as critical attributes for armour. In contrast, they generally perceive Western tanks as overly heavy and hard to repair. Crews may appreciate their survivability, but commanders find their availability diminishes quickly. Battle damage to armour is considered an inevitable consequence of its employment. As a result, the speed at which it can be recovered and repaired is critical to maintaining the tempo of operations. Where repair is likely to be slow and difficult, commanders struggle to find use cases that justify exposing their armour...
What happened to The Start Up Party??
The latter happened to me with a lawyer.
Stuart in London seems to be asking for white DEI hires... and the fact he recognised the character in that ad as "Nigel" was quite memeable too.
https://x.com/evo1tactical/status/1978751665105781013
...The modern battlefield has changed forever.
I’ve seen it firsthand over the last three and a half years training Ukrainian soldiers as a volunteer combat advisor/trainer across multiple fronts.
What used to be decided by armour, artillery, and speed is now dictated by what happens above your head. Drones, loitering munitions, and constant aerial reconnaissance have redefined how we fight, move, and survive.
No NATO army can realistically revise its manoeuvre doctrine until it achieves real dominance in air defence and counter-drone warfare. I’ve watched entire Ukrainian units learn to adapt under constant drone threat—changing routes, dispersing formations, even halting movement entirely just to avoid being spotted. In this environment, no tank, no infantry column, and no convoy can operate freely without protection from the air.
The lesson is clear: before manoeuvre warfare can evolve, we must first reclaim freedom of movement under the sky. NATO must invest heavily in short-, medium-, and long-range air defence systems and make counter-drone training part of every combat unit’s core curriculum.
Once we can neutralize aerial threats at will, only then can we truly test the future of combined arms tactics and determine whether heavy armour still has a meaningful role...
And Trump is a special case because of the widespread corruption he introduced into the Republican Party and the electorate via both blatant rigging of votes within the Republican organisation (removing anyone who dared to point out he lost in 2020 by a huge margin and replacing them with sycophants who claimed otherwise) and his control of the media (does anyone think he would have won if Twitter had been reporting the news accurately)?
The point therefore being, contrary to your assertion, people do not go back to proven winners. Trump apart, they shy away from proven losers.
Cleveland was an exception for one very good reason - he won the popular vote in every election he fought, losing to Harrison by a fluke of the electoral college in the middle. But since then, nothing.
Pretty simple really. If some firm wants to have a whites only policy in their adverts then good luck to them - they'll need it because their target demographic is going to be typically older and poorer, which in my (limited) experience isn't exactly what you should be aiming for. We did used to put old white folk on adverts for binoculars and knee-length waterproofs, come to think of it...
Chap arrested for playing the March of the Imperial Guard when the National Guard invaded Washington DC. First Amendment speech etc, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES8JXoFKZrA
(I thought Dame Andrea had had more than that £75k extra for her "office assistants" budget.)