Jump to content

A wilding

  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by A wilding

  1. Excellent quiz! So now I will have a try. Based mostly on which would be funniest: Funny: Mordaunt Perfectionist: Truss Care too much: Sunak Leader: Badenoch In the army: Tugendhat
  2. Once a baby has been born, it can be given up for adoption. The situation has changed.
  3. You just beat me to making that post. Though I was going to make a joke about the amount of hot air they are producing as well.
  4. The SNP agreed to them controversially and reluctantly, and only after getting a whole string of concessions, such as lots of money, no zero hours contracts, minimum pay set to the living wage etc. The extent to which those ones are truly still free ports is arguable.
  5. Personally I am scared about how much irreversible economic damage Sunak would do before he lost the next election, in his quest to make the UK a paradise for billionaire hedge fund owners. Look at his pet "free ports" project for example.
  6. Is there really any serious suggestion that the civil service are choosing which edicts to follow? Which bosses have they actually chosen? Actually to answer my own question, there have been such suggestions, for example Patel claiming all sorts of things about the civil service in an attempt to justify her bullying of them. (And of course Johnson kept her on, allowing her to continue to bully and signalling to other ministers that they could get away with doing the same.) But I wouldn't classify any of these suggestions as "serious". But it is of course part of the growing "stab in the back" myth. Relentless sabotage by the closet remain supporting civil service is the reason why Brexit is not being successful.
  7. It is one reading I think, but not one that I had ever picked up on. I suppose there is plenty of room for interpretation as we get relatively few details. We mostly just get a quick overview from a somewhat shell shocked Hawat. However Hawat is mostly overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the attack, which involves vastly larger forces than he had been expecting or was prepared for.
  8. In the book the sabotage of the shields at the residency merely allows the attackers to capture it and Duke Leto with it. That is obviously a big win, but it does not seem to be that significant in the strict military sense. The Atriedes forces are defeated by overwhelming force guided by very accurate intelligence, not because the residency is taken out.
  9. I think that I can only repeat that warfare in the Dune universe does not seem to work that way. Herbert was not really writing military SF so perhaps did not put too much thought into it. Though I note that at one point Duke Leto says something like "On Caladan, we ruled with sea and air power. On Arrakis we must rule with desert power. This may include air power, but possibly not." Then later Paul refers to riding on worms being desert power and how it gives them control of Arrakis. Edit: I think that there is also some reference to the sandstorms being really hard on thopters and limiting their usefulness.
  10. Yes. And the Atriedes were negotiating with the Guild for permission to keep a frigate in orbit. The Guild were saying no because the Fremen were bribing them. Generally though it does not seem that space combat or orbital bombardments etc are a thing in the Dune universe though. Possibly the Guild does not allow them?
  11. And what are the odds that he got the taxpayer to pay for it somehow?
  12. Forging a "strong economy" is one thing, creating an economy that will satisfy the red wallers scared of "millions of Eastern Europeans are coming over in a tiny space of time" is entirely another. And if you want to make Remainers "cheer up" then you must show them a plausible path to the sunlit uplands that the Brexiteers promised and that Johnson notably failed to even begin to deliver on (though I note that the official line is still that he was sabotaged by closet Remainers - I wonder how many decades it will be before that particular big lie is abandoned). But, I agree that going back in is never going to happen in my lifetime. I personally am resigned to being a little less comfortable in retirement than I was originally hoping. And I am crossing my fingers that neither Mrs W nor I develop an particularly expensive medical condition towards the end of our lives.
  13. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.
  14. So Mrs W's hopes of a Priti vs Mad Nad cat fight might yet come to fruition?
  15. He loves being Prime Minster. He just does not want to do the work of actually running the country.
  16. I reckon Johnson is about to leave on another urgent visit to Ukraine, unfortunately not having time to drop in on No 10 first.
  17. Johnson's government has had a consistent pattern of making laws that give him and his minister carte blanche to act unilaterally as they please. But no, Johnson can't dissolve parliament unilaterally. The UK supreme court settled that the last time he tried to. Unilaterally calling a general election is another matter though. As I understand it it is not entirely clear whether he has the power to do that. It would be foolish and monumentally self centred of him to try, but he has made a career of breaking norms.
  18. Amused to see that the current position of Johnson's remaining apologists is literally that the UK is an elective dictatorship. Having won the last general election, Johnson apparently has a mandate to continue on until the next election, whatever parliament, or indeed anyone else, thinks. I seem to remember an argument on this board a couple of years back as to whether the UK was now an elective dictatorship.
  19. There is almost a pattern there. Zahawi, Patel, ...
  20. They are indeed a terrible idea, one of ways that the wealthy try to prevent us from hearing about things they don't want to to know. An example of how the UK is drifting toward plutocracy. Fortunately the internet makes them less effective than they might otherwise be.
  21. A point that, but it should be the state providing any additional necessary cover. A charity is entitled to decide what its purpose is. And this continues to be true even when the state make donations to it - the state does not have to.
  22. So true. I was once tangentially involved in a comparable situation. The law suit was in the end withdrawn. However the mere possibility of it, plus the thought of some future lawsuit that the charity could not possibly afford to defend and that might even expose individual volunteers to personal liability, was enough to make the charity fold. They did look into getting insurance, but it was ruinously expensive and would have also required an impractical level of box ticking nonsense. Result: loss of a valuable service to a whole load of people, including the person who brought the lawsuit (induced into it, rumour had it, by an officious relative).
  23. Possibly a Red Kite? Not sure how many of them there are up there, but they are very common in parts of England now. Their wide forked tail is usually their most obvious distinguishing feature.
  24. Serves him right for not letting Joe Root get his century ...
  • Create New...