Taffy Osborne

All good if we had a better electoral system. I don't think even the greens can really see him as a PM though.

I said when they elected him that he simultaneously raises the floor of his electoral coalition whilst simultaneously lowering the ceiling. Yes you will probably get a few more Corbyn was great voters, at the expense of your rural Tory adjacent nimbys for who he'll be a bit much.

You losers never got on to playing the defeated peoples you crushed in your first play through as the Romans. (much less satisfying, even elephants don't make up for the inevitability of Rome)

This doesn't mean we don't ALSO use national to refer to UK state level stuff. It's the language existed before the government structures I think.

Oh sorry I didn't mean it as a gotcha! Your statement is totally correct, we just use national more confusingly in the Celtic nations. I have to say "Welsh gov", Senedd, and "Devolved" a lot to disambiguate.

In Wales we use national a lot to refer to Wales level stuff, not UK level stuff, just to confuse everyone and ourselves. So it actually really helps that general election is unambiguous. Looking forward to the national election in May, that isn't a general election.

In person I would never take the piss out of Goodwin because someone has to be likeable for that. You have my money and he doesn't so make of that what you will.

Although after you got trapped in a lift or something with her she would be great but your written appraisal scores would go down because she definitely knows who you are now.

I think she is probably terrible. She's forgotten who you are and vaugely holds a grudge for something someone else did she has confused you with.

Pike like had biscuits he baked himself too, that you politely ate one but then destroyed the plate because they were too good.

With the same line in unorthodox success.

She is from the Kirk school of erratic management.

I mean I think if there is something that defines us relative to other nationalities it's that we don't as a rule take ourselves as a group very seriously? Possibly with the exception of people who go on about values?

Although his basic prediction for now is the regime will hold on in some form for a bit.

This was good I listened this morning but it was a bit depressing that an honest to god expert with an obvious feel for the place is basically like "anything could happen"

Oh two things can happen at once - the Syria wave had the effect I'd outlined in Germany but it still fatally weakened Angela Merkel. I'm obviously hoping it doesn't come to that.

I think defense planners probably have a file that says "actions if Iran goes tonto" but probably not one that says "Iran goes tonto but the Americans lost their minds and started it" so they may be a lot of inertia in the response. I'm not clear how much actual freedom of action UK politicians have

I mean that's a good point. We're so exposed to the madness whatever we do it's just a terrible position for the government to be in. It's one like early COVID where a lot happens really fast, experts don't understand it either especially and I kinda of give government a bit of a pass.

Oh grim, I hadn't even got on to thinking about the inevitable refugee crisis if the wheels come off. (Although as with Syria you could neatly solve your pensions crisis and boost your economy as a smart European state as the well educated flee)

So what you are suggesting may sadly not be practical without accepting damage and loss of life.

NATO forces are shaped around an American logistical and intelligence backbone. There is a LOT of capability that requires their support. I mean it's been clear for some time this is bad, but it's a fact at present. AWACS in this case will be critical to an effective defence, I suspect.

I think if you allow an attack on something that later turns out an American capability you wouldn't let them use might stop it'd be worse. If this thing isn't accelerating the transatlantic decoupling in the plans of our mid/upper ranking service people & defense officials I don't know what will...

Might be more complicated militarily though eg. Are you using an AWACS that belongs to Americans you need to base somewhere, different planes for different intercept missions etc. Not saying I disagree with the sentiment, they are cowboys.

If there is no government, no organised opposition, several army factions, armed groups in regions that want independence - I mean if the goal is just making a mess that isn't a centralised state they may well succeed.

I've driven vans and 4x4s quite a bit for watersports and event work and a decent sized 4x4 is pushing it for our infrastructure. They just won't go anywhere urban, and farmers won't like them, Vs the ford ranger they already have, who does that leave?

I would be careful making these arguments given your voter coalition Nige, if I am honest. If we do party support by "in full time employment" it might not flatter you.

Hence my suspicion of the greens on this stuff, niceness isn't necessarily mutual. Putin isn't going to go home if you are nicer, he is going to be worse.

Yeah, I think if you don't defend your *interests* (defined broadly and ambiguously) you are going to get walked all over, where the line is might be a fine political judgement. Taking a very pacifist position is more likely to lead to conflict though, because they will come for your stuff/citizens.

Not to be confused to the Bab Al Mandab straight that leads to the Red Sea and Suez?