We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.
A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
Not if they are a Russian.
Russian ultra thugs have been training in the woods for years according to a documentary that was on a few months ago. To be in the one of the gangs you have to fight other gang members to the point of severe major injury to prove yourself.
I wouldn't go to a World Cup there. I don't like physical pain.
re Corbyn - I don't think this was a mistake. Well, I didn't like it, not at all, but his intention was to score political points and in that he succeeded. He is a "loser" among his enemies, but he was already. The idea that opposition leaders should behave in the same statesmanlike way as the PM is daft. The issue of Russian donations to Tory MPs is now high up the agenda, and is something his supporters, and most Labour voters, will bite at.
Even that would be a thoroughly trivial and fleeting response. Someone would still win the World Cup (Russia themselves, perhaps, if enough big teams withdrew - though perhaps more likely someone like Argentina), and then the world will move on.
For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.
Economic sanctions would be best, including limiting Russian access to Western financial markets; limiting or banning joint projects, Russian investment in the UK and UK investment in Russia (and requiring divestment of existing assets, where proscribed, within, say, 6 months). But measures should also be diplomatic: ranging from expulsion of all known or suspected Russian spies to strengthening of support for Georgia and the Ukraine, including intelligence and hardware (but not personnel) support.
Russia has clearly used a chemical weapon in Britain with the intention of murdering at least one person and, in taking that action, clearly countenanced the possibility of killing dozens more. That act requires a proportionate response.
As I said earlier, the most damaging impact on Putin would be news stories that hurt him being given international media attention on a frequent basis. Or fresh information from British tax havens.
No, it wouldn't. he really doesn't care about stuff like that. The regaining of Crimea is worth a million hostile editorials.
Putin is interested in holding, applying and increasing his, and Russia's, power (which amount to much the same thing). News stories have a minor adverse soft power impact but that shouldn't be allowed to override the real hard power gains that they're reporting on.
He absolutely cares about that. Russia has realised the power of the media narrative. That is how they got Trump elected after all. It's why he spends considerable resources peddling Ukrainian fascist stories. It is why Russia Today operates at a loss around the world. It is the reason Nemtsov and other democrats are killed off, when all they are doing is highlighting abuses.
Oh, sure, it matters in democratic countries. But it's a lot easier for Russia to run bot-interference in the West, with its free speech, than for the UK to run some kind of anti-Russian propaganda campaign. And in any case, if Russia is prepared to invade foreign countries and use chemical weapons abroad, there's more than enough truth to be going on with. If he was that bothered about Russia's image, he wouldn't be doing that stuff. But he is, so he isn't.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
re Corbyn - I don't think this was a mistake. Well, I didn't like it, not at all, but his intention was to score political points and in that he succeeded. He is a "loser" among his enemies, but he was already. The idea that opposition leaders should behave in the same statesmanlike way as the PM is daft. The issue of Russian donations to Tory MPs is now high up the agenda, and is something his supporters, and most Labour voters, will bite at.
Russia, by contrast, could be a very, very nasty affair, with a lot of violence.
A brave person who tries to be a hooligan in Russia. Will pass off as a very quiet World Cup from that point of view.
Not if they are a Russian.
Russian ultra thugs have been training in the woods for years according to a documentary that was on a few months ago. To be in the one of the gangs you have to fight other gang members to the point of severe major injury to prove yourself.
I wouldn't go to a World Cup there. I don't like physical pain.
It is going to be grim I suspect. The Russians also plan to target English fans as they see them as the ones who consider themselves hard and up for a ruck.
re Cable - another example of commentators clutching their pearls, whilst among his base, and among Remainers in general, the message ("white faces") was understood and agreed with. Anyone who lives in a big city like Birmingham can see the phenomenon of "white flight".
Mr. Flashman (deceased), nuclear was ditched by Merkel as a kneejerk and idiotic response to Fukushima's meltdown (keen observers may recall that Germany is not renowned for suffering tsunamis and earthquakes).
Well, it's ugly. And has doubled cockpit evacuation times. And I've read the safety car will carry tools for cutting through it because a driver who finds his car upside down won't be able to extricate himself. And one driver has cut his race suit open on it. And it reduces vision. And it would've perhaps prevented one incident (non-fatal) on the last decade but wouldn't've helped Jules Bianchi, so its 'safety' credentials are questionable.
re Corbyn - I don't think this was a mistake. Well, I didn't like it, not at all, but his intention was to score political points and in that he succeeded. He is a "loser" among his enemies, but he was already. The idea that opposition leaders should behave in the same statesmanlike way as the PM is daft. The issue of Russian donations to Tory MPs is now high up the agenda, and is something his supporters, and most Labour voters, will bite at.
Your comments in your last sentence where not shared by his own MP's who trashed his response one after another, after another. It was embarrassing and showed how out of his depth he was
There are no Russian donations to the Conservative Party. There are only donations by UK citizens who on the electoral roll. Of course mere facts don't matter.
re Corbyn - I don't think this was a mistake. Well, I didn't like it, not at all, but his intention was to score political points and in that he succeeded. He is a "loser" among his enemies, but he was already. The idea that opposition leaders should behave in the same statesmanlike way as the PM is daft. The issue of Russian donations to Tory MPs is now high up the agenda, and is something his supporters, and most Labour voters, will bite at.
Trade Unions ever had Russian money?
"Ever" is a word understood by opponents but not by supporters.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.
Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
Appeasement was a Conservative party policy...
Unilateral disarmament was a Labour one, in both the 1930s and the 1980s - the latter supported by Corbyn both then and now, I think.
re Corbyn - I don't think this was a mistake. Well, I didn't like it, not at all, but his intention was to score political points and in that he succeeded. He is a "loser" among his enemies, but he was already. The idea that opposition leaders should behave in the same statesmanlike way as the PM is daft. The issue of Russian donations to Tory MPs is now high up the agenda, and is something his supporters, and most Labour voters, will bite at.
Trade Unions ever had Russian money?
"Ever" is a word understood by opponents but not by supporters.
I didn't realise education had fallen so far or was so sophisticated as to select and identify supporters and opponents.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
There are no Russian donations to the Conservative Party. There are only donations by UK citizens who on the electoral roll. Of course mere facts don't matter.
That's a good point that people should bear in mind when Corbyn and co. try to score points. That said I think all political parties need to be very wary of where money ultimately comes from, and what allegencies the donor may have. It's not like the Kremlin itself is going to write a cheque. Does the Electoral Commission have the ability to properly scrutinise such aspects of political donations?
Mr. Flashman (deceased), nuclear was ditched by Merkel as a kneejerk and idiotic response to Fukushima's meltdown (keen observers may recall that Germany is not renowned for suffering tsunamis and earthquakes).
Well, it's ugly. And has doubled cockpit evacuation times. And I've read the safety car will carry tools for cutting through it because a driver who finds his car upside down won't be able to extricate himself. And one driver has cut his race suit open on it. And it reduces vision. And it would've perhaps prevented one incident (non-fatal) on the last decade but wouldn't've helped Jules Bianchi, so its 'safety' credentials are questionable.
Why do you say that about Bianchi? Has it been established that it wouldn't have been strong enough? (it was a horrible thing to watch - one of those clips that i tracked down and then really wished I hadn't)
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
There are no Russian donations to the Conservative Party. There are only donations by UK citizens who on the electoral roll. Of course mere facts don't matter.
I said donations from people closely associated with the Russian regime. Facts do matter.
Mr. Anorak, what I've heard from others (not my area of expertise) is that it was the sheer concussive force of going from high speed to no speed that caused the damage. F1 helmets are immensely strong already (decades ago I saw a feature about how one of Schumacher's could theoretically withstand being run over by a tank).
Bianchi's death was tragic, yet the sport's at risk of making itself more dangerous by pursuing a 'safety feature' that has some serious question marks about it. Making cars more difficult to evacuate, particularly given the potential for fire and electrical problems, and perhaps impossible if upside down, is not something that fills me with confidence.
For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.
Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
Appeasement was a Conservative party policy...
Unilateral disarmament was a Labour one, in both the 1930s and the 1980s - the latter supported by Corbyn both then and now, I think.
Pacifism was indeed the policy in the early thirties, but after the Italian war invasion of Ethiopia, Lansbury resigned in October 1935, and Attlee took over with support for rearmament. Appeasement of the Nazis came later, under the Tories.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
The general perception in Russia is that Putin stands opposed to the oligarchy, who grew rich at the people's expense.....
Which is absurd, given he's the top kleptocrat.
The set of those who grew rich off the spoils of the collapsed soviet state contains both Putin's cronies and opponents.
The only way that Putin stood up to the oligarchs was by picking the winners, and having their rivals bumped off by the state and private security companies. Essentially providing a state-sanctioned roof for almost all organised crime in Russia.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
Glad we cleared up that over 200 EU citizens including 10 Brits died and the EU did nothing.
But you focus on the owner of the plane - crack on.
I thought the person who tried to make a point by writing 'a member state's airline was shot down' was the one focusing on the owner of the plane. Silly me.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
Glad we cleared up that over 200 EU citizens including 10 Brits died and the EU did nothing.
But you focus on the owner of the plane - crack on.
It took the EU three days to agree a position on China's territorial claims in the South China Sea. It's difficult to do foreign policy by committee. There are always fracture lines between the member states.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
It was MH17. Malaysia being, of course, one of the lesser known EU countries.
However the flight originated in the Netherlands and most of the passengers were Dutch nationals. The Dutch were in charge of the accident inquiry and got no cooperation from Russia.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), nuclear was ditched by Merkel as a kneejerk and idiotic response to Fukushima's meltdown (keen observers may recall that Germany is not renowned for suffering tsunamis and earthquakes).
Well, it's ugly. And has doubled cockpit evacuation times. And I've read the safety car will carry tools for cutting through it because a driver who finds his car upside down won't be able to extricate himself. And one driver has cut his race suit open on it. And it reduces vision. And it would've perhaps prevented one incident (non-fatal) on the last decade but wouldn't've helped Jules Bianchi, so its 'safety' credentials are questionable.
Why do you say that about Bianchi? Has it been established that it wouldn't have been strong enough? (it was a horrible thing to watch - one of those clips that i tracked down and then really wished I hadn't)
Not even close enough to preventing the Bianchi accident, don’t watch that video if you haven’t already. Might have saved Justin Wilson and possibly John Surtees but someone is going to be seriously injured or worse by not being able to quickly jump clear from a car on fire. More research needed IMHO.
We already are part of the NATO joint command structure.
Seriously, strengthening military ties with EU member states is something the UK could do. This brings in Sweden and Finland, who aren't members of NATO.
Lets face it - the EU did nothing when a member state's airline was shot down.
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
The general perception in Russia is that Putin stands opposed to the oligarchy, who grew rich at the people's expense.....
Which is absurd, given he's the top kleptocrat.
The set of those who grew rich off the spoils of the collapsed soviet state contains both Putin's cronies and opponents.
Yes, those oligarchs who were prepared to cede power were allowed to keep their wealth; those who opposed him lost both their power and their wealth (and, often, in a series of unfortunate incidents, their lives too).
Mr. Anorak, what I've heard from others (not my area of expertise) is that it was the sheer concussive force of going from high speed to no speed that caused the damage. F1 helmets are immensely strong already (decades ago I saw a feature about how one of Schumacher's could theoretically withstand being run over by a tank).
Bianchi's death was tragic, yet the sport's at risk of making itself more dangerous by pursuing a 'safety feature' that has some serious question marks about it. Making cars more difficult to evacuate, particularly given the potential for fire and electrical problems, and perhaps impossible if upside down, is not something that fills me with confidence.
Having regretfully seen the clip his head is struck by a metal protrusion of the (very, very sturdy) trackside vehicle. It wasn't just a massive deceleration from the car hitting something solid (although that happened too). But I am not an expert either so I can't speak with any authority on the matter.
I would, however, note that your second paragraph is almost exactly the same argument used against the mandatory fitting of seat-belts to cars, and later to their mandatory use.
For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.
Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
Excellent idea! If Theresa can link British euro-scepticism with Putin's Russia in the public consciousness it will delivery her no end of political gifts. It would kill off UKIP for a start - who'd ever vote for them again in the knowledge that they were the poisoner's friend?
Ah. Nice to see the lunatic fringe are out in force today.
Perhaps. But with talk of a boycott of Russia 2018 very definitely in the air and with Qatar at the centre of an Arab cold war, FIFA has an emerging crisis.
I think Qatar will be the bigger problem for FIFA.
There’s so many issues that might stop it happening.
Plus, just imagine if Israel qualifies.
Should be OK shouldn't it, Qataris and Israelis both worship basically the same god !
If Russia chucks ours out in tit for tat, then that makes it much easier for us to say we have an inability to support UK tourists in Russia during the World Cup, so.....
To be fair to Chamberlain, he had several 'moment's to respond to. He was PM when Poland was invaded as much as when the Sudentenland was threatened.
Depends how events turn out this weekend I might finally get to do my 'Boris Johnson, the worst Foreign Secretary since Lord Halifax' piece.
It'll be a World War II themed weekend, I've got a Dunkirk themed thread almost written.
That’s a bit hard on Lord Halifax.
No, it's not. he was still arguing for appeasement in about 1944 - that time with the Soviet Union, even as it made clear its plans for the Eastern European states being occupied. He called Hitler wrong and failed to learn any of the lessons to apply to Stalin.
There have been some duffers as FS but most were down to their lack of impact (Margaret Beckett?) rather than being a genuinely baneful influence.
For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.
Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
Excellent idea! If Theresa can link British euro-scepticism with Putin's Russia in the public consciousness it will delivery her no end of political gifts. It would kill off UKIP for a start - who'd ever vote for them again in the knowledge that they were the poisoner's friend?
Ah. Nice to see the lunatic fringe are out in force today.
Pretty sick to use the events in Salisbury to push their Stop Brexit agenda regardless.....
Mr. Anorak, if an F1 driver is stuck in an overturned car that's on fire (unlikely but not impossible, we usually see a few fires a year) his thoughts won't be full of gratitude to the halo making him feel safe.
Paul Johnson suggesting £40bn of tax rises needed by 2025 to cut the deficit. Why? A lack of productivity, wage and GDP growth. I was struck by the fact that median earnings are still below the 2008 level.
To be fair to Chamberlain, he had several 'moment's to respond to. He was PM when Poland was invaded as much as when the Sudentenland was threatened.
Depends how events turn out this weekend I might finally get to do my 'Boris Johnson, the worst Foreign Secretary since Lord Halifax' piece.
It'll be a World War II themed weekend, I've got a Dunkirk themed thread almost written.
That’s a bit hard on Lord Halifax.
No, it's not. he was still arguing for appeasement in about 1944 - that time with the Soviet Union, even as it made clear its plans for the Eastern European states being occupied. He called Hitler wrong and failed to learn any of the lessons to apply to Stalin.
There have been some duffers as FS but most were down to their lack of impact (Margaret Beckett?) rather than being a genuinely baneful influence.
I would have said Boris is worse than Halifax. At least Halifax could be, so far as I’ve read, be relied upon to behave reasonably, even if politically he was a disaster. Anyway, wasn’t he quite good as Ambassador in Washington DC
To be fair to Chamberlain, he had several 'moment's to respond to. He was PM when Poland was invaded as much as when the Sudentenland was threatened.
Depends how events turn out this weekend I might finally get to do my 'Boris Johnson, the worst Foreign Secretary since Lord Halifax' piece.
It'll be a World War II themed weekend, I've got a Dunkirk themed thread almost written.
That’s a bit hard on Lord Halifax.
No, it's not. he was still arguing for appeasement in about 1944 - that time with the Soviet Union, even as it made clear its plans for the Eastern European states being occupied. He called Hitler wrong and failed to learn any of the lessons to apply to Stalin.
There have been some duffers as FS but most were down to their lack of impact (Margaret Beckett?) rather than being a genuinely baneful influence.
I would have said Boris is worse than Halifax. At least Halifax could be, so far as I’ve read, be relied upon to behave reasonably, even if politically he was a disaster. Anyway, wasn’t he quite good as Ambassador in Washington DC
I think Halifax made his name brokering peace in Ireland, and in the twenties progressing the path to self rule in India. A curates egg rather than a disaster.
For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.
Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
Appeasement was a Conservative party policy...
Unilateral disarmament was a Labour one, in both the 1930s and the 1980s - the latter supported by Corbyn both then and now, I think.
Pacifism was indeed the policy in the early thirties, but after the Italian war invasion of Ethiopia, Lansbury resigned in October 1935, and Attlee took over with support for rearmament. Appeasement of the Nazis came later, under the Tories.
That's true. But it was a bit rich of Labour to oppose appeasement when two of the reasons for it were the lack of military resources, and the public opposition to action, both of which Labour (including Attlee) were in part responsible for.
It is, as an aside, I don't think it's true to say that "Attlee took over with support for rearmament"? If i remember correctly, the pacifist agenda outlived Lansbury and Labour fought the 1935 election on that platform - although Labour did start to move away from it a little earlier, endorsing sanctions over Abyssinia, which was what prompted Lansbury's removal.
There are no Russian donations to the Conservative Party. There are only donations by UK citizens who on the electoral roll. Of course mere facts don't matter.
I said donations from people closely associated with the Russian regime. Facts do matter.
Quite. There aren't any. There are some people who many years ago were associated with the Russian regime. I don't think any of them are friends of the Putin of today. Perhaps you know better?
Mr. Anorak, if an F1 driver is stuck in an overturned car that's on fire (unlikely but not impossible, we usually see a few fires a year) his thoughts won't be full of gratitude to the halo making him feel safe.
You could argue that car seatbelts are a menace to those unfortunate enough to drive into a river, but it doesn't make them a bad idea.
I can't believe that this objection hasn't been discussed at great length by the various committees and approvers of the change, and thus that the consensus is that it does more good than harm.
To be fair to Chamberlain, he had several 'moment's to respond to. He was PM when Poland was invaded as much as when the Sudentenland was threatened.
Depends how events turn out this weekend I might finally get to do my 'Boris Johnson, the worst Foreign Secretary since Lord Halifax' piece.
It'll be a World War II themed weekend, I've got a Dunkirk themed thread almost written.
That’s a bit hard on Lord Halifax.
No, it's not. he was still arguing for appeasement in about 1944 - that time with the Soviet Union, even as it made clear its plans for the Eastern European states being occupied. He called Hitler wrong and failed to learn any of the lessons to apply to Stalin.
There have been some duffers as FS but most were down to their lack of impact (Margaret Beckett?) rather than being a genuinely baneful influence.
I would have said Boris is worse than Halifax. At least Halifax could be, so far as I’ve read, be relied upon to behave reasonably, even if politically he was a disaster. Anyway, wasn’t he quite good as Ambassador in Washington DC
Boris could potentially be quite good as Ambassador to the US. I could see him going down well there.
We will still go to the World Cup regardless, May will not want to annoy the wwc for whom it will be a highlight of their summer. Expulsions and financial sanctions are more likely
So still a clear No vote then but with Unionist parties set to win a majority at the next Holyrood elections indyref2 discussion is becoming irrelevant anyway
Mr. Anorak, if an F1 driver is stuck in an overturned car that's on fire (unlikely but not impossible, we usually see a few fires a year) his thoughts won't be full of gratitude to the halo making him feel safe.
You could argue that car seatbelts are a menace to those unfortunate enough to drive into a river, but it doesn't make them a bad idea.
I can't believe that this objection hasn't been discussed at great length by the various committees and approvers of the change, and thus that the consensus is that it does more good than harm.
I may misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the 'impeding escape from a burning car' was an argument used against the compulsory use of seat belts in passenger cars.
We will still go to the World Cup regardless, May will not want to annoy the wwc for whom it will be a highlight of their summer. Expulsions and financial sanctions are more likely
As a member of the working class, she'll be doing us a favour if she pulls us out of the world cup.
Have you seen how we did in the 2014 world cup and the 2016 Euros?
For a meaningful response, the UK - and allies as far as possible - need to make a lasting impact on Russia and the Putin regime that causes real pain.
Reversing Brexit would cause him genuine angst with the added bonus that it would be an economic, moral, cultural and intellectual boon to the UK.
And anti democratic. We must leave and then those wanting to be part of the EU must campaign to rejoin.
We have choices. So far we have not chosen to face up to Russia when we could have done. Corbyn at least has a point about the Conservative Party accepting large donations from people closely associated with the regime. That sends the message that actually we don't care what you do on our soil.
Appeasement was a Conservative party policy...
Unilateral disarmament was a Labour one, in both the 1930s and the 1980s - the latter supported by Corbyn both then and now, I think.
Pacifism was indeed the policy in the early thirties, but after the Italian war invasion of Ethiopia, Lansbury resigned in October 1935, and Attlee took over with support for rearmament. Appeasement of the Nazis came later, under the Tories.
That's true. But it was a bit rich of Labour to oppose appeasement when two of the reasons for it were the lack of military resources, and the public opposition to action, both of which Labour (including Attlee) were in part responsible for.
It is, as an aside, I don't think it's true to say that "Attlee took over with support for rearmament"? If i remember correctly, the pacifist agenda outlived Lansbury and Labour fought the 1935 election on that platform - although Labour did start to move away from it a little earlier, endorsing sanctions over Abyssinia, which was what prompted Lansbury's removal.
Retrospectoscopes do distort our vision of the 1930s quite severely. The early thirties were internationally experienced as a crisis of Capitalism and the capability of Democracies to cope with it. It was only the second half of the Thirties that the external risks of totalitarian regimes became the major issue.
It is simply a matter of fact that Appeasment was the policy of the Tory government in the late Thirties, and until 1938 a fairly popular one. Labour were in opposition, and so cannot be blamed for it. Chamberlain may have been a poor PM but he was a very good CoE, so not all bad.
So still a clear No vote then but with Unionist parties set to win a majority at the next Holyrood elections indyref2 discussion is becoming irrelevant anyway
Again, glad to see that you accept that an indy majority at Holyrood keeps the discussion 'relevant'.
I may misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the 'impeding escape from a burning car' was an argument used against the compulsory use of seat belts in passenger cars.
I may have already pointed that out
Even more ridiculously, it was claimed it a seat belt would stop you being "thrown clear" of a crash.
So still a clear No vote then but with Unionist parties set to win a majority at the next Holyrood elections indyref2 discussion is becoming irrelevant anyway
Again, glad to see that you accept that an indy majority at Holyrood keeps the discussion 'relevant'.
No as the SNP tried to push indyref2 at the general election and lost almost half their MPs thus giving Westminster a mandate to block it anyway
Well, in a criminal investigation, you do seek proof beyond reasonable doubt instead of treating a suspect as guilty until proved innocent.
Unlike ricin or strychnine, the use of nerve agents is banned under international law. So ask the UN to do an analysis to establish if possible which national lab. it came from.
That should be acceptable to the Russians too. I think they wanted to do their own analysis. That is no more satisfactory than the UK position, because their analysis would presumably 'prove' that it didn't come from Russia.
I may misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the 'impeding escape from a burning car' was an argument used against the compulsory use of seat belts in passenger cars.
I may have already pointed that out :P
Even more ridiculously, it was claimed it a seat belt would stop you being "thrown clear" of a crash.
Ah, sorry. I blame MD's aversion to using the quote system.
So still a clear No vote then but with Unionist parties set to win a majority at the next Holyrood elections indyref2 discussion is becoming irrelevant anyway
Again, glad to see that you accept that an indy majority at Holyrood keeps the discussion 'relevant'.
No as the SNP tried to push indyref2 at the general election and lost almost half their MPs thus giving Westminster a mandate to block it anyway
We will still go to the World Cup regardless, May will not want to annoy the wwc for whom it will be a highlight of their summer. Expulsions and financial sanctions are more likely
As a member of the working class, she'll be doing us a favour if she pulls us out of the world cup.
Have you seen how we did in the 2014 world cup and the 2016 Euros?
We were a national embarrassment.
If you are working class, a privately and Oxbridge educated lawyer whose father was a doctor, then so is the Queen!
The working class love putting the bunting out in the summer and having a bbq when the World Cup is on even if our biggest achievement ends up being beating Latvia at the group stage in extra time
So still a clear No vote then but with Unionist parties set to win a majority at the next Holyrood elections indyref2 discussion is becoming irrelevant anyway
Again, glad to see that you accept that an indy majority at Holyrood keeps the discussion 'relevant'.
No as the SNP tried to push indyref2 at the general election and lost almost half their MPs thus giving Westminster a mandate to block it anyway
So still a clear No vote then but with Unionist parties set to win a majority at the next Holyrood elections indyref2 discussion is becoming irrelevant anyway
Again, glad to see that you accept that an indy majority at Holyrood keeps the discussion 'relevant'.
No as the SNP tried to push indyref2 at the general election and lost almost half their MPs thus giving Westminster a mandate to block it anyway
Mr. Anorak, F1 cars are rather scarcer and travel on different surfaces to normal cars. Comparing the two isn't much use.
Great leaps forward have been made in safety over recent decades, but F1 bigwigs have also shown themselves to be utterly incapable of grasping obvious problems with rule changes. The elimination qualifying experiment, that everyone said would be woeful, turned out to be woeful.
I hope I'm not proved right, but there are serious question marks over the halo.
So still a clear No vote then but with Unionist parties set to win a majority at the next Holyrood elections indyref2 discussion is becoming irrelevant anyway
Again, glad to see that you accept that an indy majority at Holyrood keeps the discussion 'relevant'.
No as the SNP tried to push indyref2 at the general election and lost almost half their MPs thus giving Westminster a mandate to block it anyway
Comments
Germany continues to rely on gas from Russia - all their crazy talk about greening up and the madness of ditching nuclear because of a few headbanging Green MPs means Putin has Merkel by the short and curlies.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels
It'll be a World War II themed weekend, I've got a Dunkirk themed thread almost written.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), nuclear was ditched by Merkel as a kneejerk and idiotic response to Fukushima's meltdown (keen observers may recall that Germany is not renowned for suffering tsunamis and earthquakes).
F1: Todt has said criticism of the halo is amazing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43399491
Well, it's ugly. And has doubled cockpit evacuation times. And I've read the safety car will carry tools for cutting through it because a driver who finds his car upside down won't be able to extricate himself. And one driver has cut his race suit open on it. And it reduces vision. And it would've perhaps prevented one incident (non-fatal) on the last decade but wouldn't've helped Jules Bianchi, so its 'safety' credentials are questionable.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/03/if-we-really-want-annoy-russia-we-should-cancel-brexit
It's all a plot to discredit Jeremy Corbyn and Labour.
Don't fall for this well worn false flag operation sheeple.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/europe/netherlands-malaysia-airlines-mh17-suspects.html
(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).
Glad we cleared that up.
The set of those who grew rich off the spoils of the collapsed soviet state contains both Putin's cronies and opponents.
I love giving PBers lessons in history.
Bianchi's death was tragic, yet the sport's at risk of making itself more dangerous by pursuing a 'safety feature' that has some serious question marks about it. Making cars more difficult to evacuate, particularly given the potential for fire and electrical problems, and perhaps impossible if upside down, is not something that fills me with confidence.
But you focus on the owner of the plane - crack on.
I'll be generous, losing to ten man Celtic is still affecting your critical faculties.
I would, however, note that your second paragraph is almost exactly the same argument used against the mandatory fitting of seat-belts to cars, and later to their mandatory use.
https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/973888258638798848
There have been some duffers as FS but most were down to their lack of impact (Margaret Beckett?) rather than being a genuinely baneful influence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43397798
It is, as an aside, I don't think it's true to say that "Attlee took over with support for rearmament"? If i remember correctly, the pacifist agenda outlived Lansbury and Labour fought the 1935 election on that platform - although Labour did start to move away from it a little earlier, endorsing sanctions over Abyssinia, which was what prompted Lansbury's removal.
https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/973890666974646273
I can't believe that this objection hasn't been discussed at great length by the various committees and approvers of the change, and thus that the consensus is that it does more good than harm.
He helped confirm my love of science, and physics in particular.
https://twitter.com/hasavrat/status/973887244279930880
Have you seen how we did in the 2014 world cup and the 2016 Euros?
We were a national embarrassment.
It is simply a matter of fact that Appeasment was the policy of the Tory government in the late Thirties, and until 1938 a fairly popular one. Labour were in opposition, and so cannot be blamed for it. Chamberlain may have been a poor PM but he was a very good CoE, so not all bad.
Even more ridiculously, it was claimed it a seat belt would stop you being "thrown clear" of a crash.
Unlike ricin or strychnine, the use of nerve agents is banned under international law. So ask the UN to do an analysis to establish if possible which national lab. it came from.
That should be acceptable to the Russians too. I think they wanted to do their own analysis. That is no more satisfactory than the UK position, because their analysis would presumably 'prove' that it didn't come from Russia.
The working class love putting the bunting out in the summer and having a bbq when the World Cup is on even if our biggest achievement ends up being beating Latvia at the group stage in extra time
"Can I help you with your suitcase?"
"No, I'm travelling light."
Great leaps forward have been made in safety over recent decades, but F1 bigwigs have also shown themselves to be utterly incapable of grasping obvious problems with rule changes. The elimination qualifying experiment, that everyone said would be woeful, turned out to be woeful.
I hope I'm not proved right, but there are serious question marks over the halo.