Tuesday 7th October 2014

[tinyclanger2]

RS - have sent you a message but don't know if it's actually "sent". Technology not my biggest strength.

[Temulkar]

The situation with the Kurds at the moment reminds me somewhat of the Warsaw Rising. With the Turks playing the Red Army.

An apposite and terrifying analogy. I have a new mantra: F*** geopolitics.

That is a little unfair on the Red Army.

At the Warsaw uprising they had no air cover, and were at the end of supply lines (with worn out spearheads). They were hundreds of miles west of the jumping off points from operation Bagration (which wiped out Army Group Centre, Germany's biggest defeat of the war). Even if they had been motivated they could have done sod all.

They had airfields 5 mins flying time from Warsaw, and they refused RAF/USAAF planes permission to land on soviet held airfields to resupply the poles. They had also had near complete air superiority as the Luftwaffe was broken by Sept 44. Stalin ordered his forces to cut off any polish partisans from reinforcing Warsaw; there was no way he was going to allow a successful Polish uprising. It had to be the Red Army to liberate Eastern Europe so he could play out his post war ambitions.

The Russians didn't lift a finger to help Warsaw; they could, and should have, but it was just another sacrifice for Stalin.

[AngryAsWell]

Oi! Demarcation dispute here!

If anyone's going to be dispensing drinks around here, it'll be LetSkip or myself. We're professionals, don'tcha know.

As to whether Labour should campaign hard, well I think it has to be seen to be fighting, although "seen" and "actually" can be two different things.

On a wider point, and one that I'm very aware of, being in Wollaston's constituency, which required a protest vote to the LD's pre-2010, is that my labour vote may actually be quite important on a wider stage as there is an awful lot of talk of "overall vote share" should there be another hung parliament, so I take some comfort that my useless constituency vote (and I've never voted for a winning MP - I was at Uni in Runnymede, and I'm a Devon boy at heart) might actually have some impact in the wider scheme of things.

So, yes, while resources need to allocated carefully, I reckon a good solid national vote across the country is important.

I'll have a larger shandy please

[TechnicalEphemera]

An apposite and terrifying analogy. I have a new mantra: F*** geopolitics.

That is a little unfair on the Red Army.

At the Warsaw uprising they had no air cover, and were at the end of supply lines (with worn out spearheads). They were hundreds of miles west of the jumping off points from operation Bagration (which wiped out Army Group Centre, Germany's biggest defeat of the war). Even if they had been motivated they could have done sod all.

They had airfields 5 mins flying time from Warsaw, and they refused RAF/USAAF planes permission to land on soviet held airfields to resupply the poles. They had also had near complete air superiority as the Luftwaffe was broken by Sept 44. Stalin ordered his forces to cut off any polish partisans from reinforcing Warsaw; there was no way he was going to allow a successful Polish uprising. It had to be the Red Army to liberate Eastern Europe so he could play out his post war ambitions.

The Russians didn't lift a finger to help Warsaw; they could, and should have, but it was just another sacrifice for Stalin.

Stalin had no interest in helping the Poles, but those airfields wouldn't have been much use to the RAF. The Red Army had air superiority by mid 44, but not operating at extended distances from their bases. They certainly wouldn't have had enough to support a city assault. This is a consequence of operating a long way from the supply bases.

Could the Red Army have taken the city, not likely off the march at the end of a big offensive. Did Stalin care - no. Was he going to let the RAF get in the way in a futile attempt to support a doomed uprising - also no.

Stalin not a nice person true, the Red Army could have taken Warsaw right then, false.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I'm sure people have seen this one before, but it never gets old imo ....

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/upl ... -clegg.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Temulkar]

That is a little unfair on the Red Army.

At the Warsaw uprising they had no air cover, and were at the end of supply lines (with worn out spearheads). They were hundreds of miles west of the jumping off points from operation Bagration (which wiped out Army Group Centre, Germany's biggest defeat of the war). Even if they had been motivated they could have done sod all.

They had airfields 5 mins flying time from Warsaw, and they refused RAF/USAAF planes permission to land on soviet held airfields to resupply the poles. They had also had near complete air superiority as the Luftwaffe was broken by Sept 44. Stalin ordered his forces to cut off any polish partisans from reinforcing Warsaw; there was no way he was going to allow a successful Polish uprising. It had to be the Red Army to liberate Eastern Europe so he could play out his post war ambitions.

The Russians didn't lift a finger to help Warsaw; they could, and should have, but it was just another sacrifice for Stalin.

Stalin had no interest in helping the Poles, but those airfields wouldn't have been much use to the RAF. The Red Army had air superiority by mid 44, but not operating at extended distances from their bases. They certainly wouldn't have had enough to support a city assault. This is a consequence of operating a long way from the supply bases.

Could the Red Army have taken the city, not likely off the march at the end of a big offensive. Did Stalin care - no. Was he going to let the RAF get in the way in a futile attempt to support a doomed uprising - also no.

Stalin not a nice person true, the Red Army could have taken Warsaw right then, false.

It was a direct order from Stalin that stopped the tanks in July 44, 10 miles from warsaw, German forces in the area were weak, the Russians could have easily supported the uprising. Not only did they not support it, they actively moved against it, stopping reinforcement by land by independent Polish forces and limiting supplies from the air. All orders that came directly from Stalin. It was very much part of his post-war plan.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 1m1 minute ago
Reckon the Clegger has the best, if not the most political, announcement of the conference season in his speech tomorrow.

Well you would reckon that, wouldn't you ....

Ah but will he mention the deficit?

He'll lie about having hauled the country back from the brink. At which point, someone ought to say "That Alistair Darling looks younger every time I see him".

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... risis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a sane world, Darling should be sliding back into the Shadow Cabinet, to a warm welcome. Instead, he seems to be finished because he was uninspiring in the Referendum, and the poorest areas voted Yes.

Never mind that most macroeconomists (including Wren-Lewis, Portes, Coppolla) think the poorest areas would have had a dose extra austerity if the vote was YES, and without a Central Bank.

[AngryAsWell]

@Hobiejoe
Is this your pub ? (Only kiddin)

http://t.co/GHmNM96G6S" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TechnicalEphemera]

They had airfields 5 mins flying time from Warsaw, and they refused RAF/USAAF planes permission to land on soviet held airfields to resupply the poles. They had also had near complete air superiority as the Luftwaffe was broken by Sept 44. Stalin ordered his forces to cut off any polish partisans from reinforcing Warsaw; there was no way he was going to allow a successful Polish uprising. It had to be the Red Army to liberate Eastern Europe so he could play out his post war ambitions.

The Russians didn't lift a finger to help Warsaw; they could, and should have, but it was just another sacrifice for Stalin.

Stalin had no interest in helping the Poles, but those airfields wouldn't have been much use to the RAF. The Red Army had air superiority by mid 44, but not operating at extended distances from their bases. They certainly wouldn't have had enough to support a city assault. This is a consequence of operating a long way from the supply bases.

Could the Red Army have taken the city, not likely off the march at the end of a big offensive. Did Stalin care - no. Was he going to let the RAF get in the way in a futile attempt to support a doomed uprising - also no.

Stalin not a nice person true, the Red Army could have taken Warsaw right then, false.

It was a direct order from Stalin that stopped the tanks in July 44, 10 miles from warsaw, German forces in the area were weak, the Russians could have easily supported the uprising. Not only did they not support it, they actively moved against it, stopping reinforcement by land by independent Polish forces and limiting supplies from the air. All orders that came directly from Stalin. It was very much part of his post-war plan.

No the Red Army was not just stopped in its tracks, Warsaw wasn't an objective and they were at the end of their supply lines. German counter attacks had snipped off Russian spearheads before, there was no incentive to take a risk and fighting in a city without first surrounding it is a mugs game.

However it was definitely Stalins objective to absorb Poland as a client state, so taking risks to help his opponents not likely to be his style.

[AngryAsWell]

“How many of you are unapologetic, unreformed Thatcherites?”
“This is what Valhalla looks like!”

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/10/p ... onference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AngryAsWell]

Ignore the gutter/Murdoch Press attempts to divide Labour. Here is what Andy Burnham really thinks about Ed Miliband

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hobiejoe]

@Hobiejoe
Is this your pub ? (Only kiddin)

http://t.co/GHmNM96G6S" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Got it in one! Yes, we're the Foxgone Arms, in the little village of Banhunting On The Marsh - congratulations, you've won a horse brass and your own pewter mug!

[AngryAsWell]

Political Scrapbook ‏@PSbook · 1 min1 minute ago
To whoever sent us that Lib Dem thing around 11am: thanks ... we're looking into it. Others can tip anonymously here: http://politicalscrapbook.net/contact/tips/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting ?

[AngryAsWell]

@Hobiejoe
Is this your pub ? (Only kiddin)

http://t.co/GHmNM96G6S" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Got it in one! Yes, we're the Foxgone Arms, in the little village of Banhunting On The Marsh - congratulations, you've won a horse brass and your own pewter mug!

That was SO not the link it should have been.....
Back in a bit...

[adam]

Oi! Demarcation dispute here!

If anyone's going to be dispensing drinks around here, it'll be LetSkip or myself. We're professionals, don'tcha know.

As to whether Labour should campaign hard, well I think it has to be seen to be fighting, although "seen" and "actually" can be two different things.

On a wider point, and one that I'm very aware of, being in Wollaston's constituency, which required a protest vote to the LD's pre-2010, is that my labour vote may actually be quite important on a wider stage as there is an awful lot of talk of "overall vote share" should there be another hung parliament, so I take some comfort that my useless constituency vote (and I've never voted for a winning MP - I was at Uni in Runnymede, and I'm a Devon boy at heart) might actually have some impact in the wider scheme of things.

So, yes, while resources need to allocated carefully, I reckon a good solid national vote across the country is important.

I'll have a larger shandy please

And I'll have an even larger one.

[adam]

Two drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff.

[Temulkar]

Stalin had no interest in helping the Poles, but those airfields wouldn't have been much use to the RAF. The Red Army had air superiority by mid 44, but not operating at extended distances from their bases. They certainly wouldn't have had enough to support a city assault. This is a consequence of operating a long way from the supply bases.

Could the Red Army have taken the city, not likely off the march at the end of a big offensive. Did Stalin care - no. Was he going to let the RAF get in the way in a futile attempt to support a doomed uprising - also no.

Stalin not a nice person true, the Red Army could have taken Warsaw right then, false.

It was a direct order from Stalin that stopped the tanks in July 44, 10 miles from warsaw, German forces in the area were weak, the Russians could have easily supported the uprising. Not only did they not support it, they actively moved against it, stopping reinforcement by land by independent Polish forces and limiting supplies from the air. All orders that came directly from Stalin. It was very much part of his post-war plan.

No the Red Army was not just stopped in its tracks, Warsaw wasn't an objective and they were at the end of their supply lines. German counter attacks had snipped off Russian spearheads before, there was no incentive to take a risk and fighting in a city without first surrounding it is a mugs game.

However it was definitely Stalins objective to absorb Poland as a client state, so taking risks to help his opponents not likely to be his style.

The Soviet archives disagree with you I'm afraid. The tanks were stopped on a direct order from Stalin.

[gilsey]

https://twitter.com/stridingedge/status ... 4322471936

Come on PM, do the decent thing and answer Maddy

[AngryAsWell]

@Hobiejoe
Is this your pub ? (Only kiddin)

http://t.co/GHmNM96G6S" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Got it in one! Yes, we're the Foxgone Arms, in the little village of Banhunting On The Marsh - congratulations, you've won a horse brass and your own pewter mug!

That was SO not the link it should have been.....
Back in a bit...

Try this one
'Staff will nail your kids to table' - is this most offensive pub sign ever?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Not that I think you would nail kids to a table, but I thought it funny - my sense of humour is a bit skew-wib - and you were the first landlord I could think of to share it with)

[AngryAsWell]

Oi! Demarcation dispute here!

If anyone's going to be dispensing drinks around here, it'll be LetSkip or myself. We're professionals, don'tcha know.

As to whether Labour should campaign hard, well I think it has to be seen to be fighting, although "seen" and "actually" can be two different things.

On a wider point, and one that I'm very aware of, being in Wollaston's constituency, which required a protest vote to the LD's pre-2010, is that my labour vote may actually be quite important on a wider stage as there is an awful lot of talk of "overall vote share" should there be another hung parliament, so I take some comfort that my useless constituency vote (and I've never voted for a winning MP - I was at Uni in Runnymede, and I'm a Devon boy at heart) might actually have some impact in the wider scheme of things.

So, yes, while resources need to allocated carefully, I reckon a good solid national vote across the country is important.

I'll have a larger shandy please

And I'll have an even larger one.

that little rascal "r" moonlighting again - wait till he gets home and I get my hands on him.....

[TechnicalEphemera]

The Soviet archives disagree with you I'm afraid. The tanks were stopped on a direct order from Stalin.

Of course the Tanks were stopped on a direct order of Stalin. He had strategic control of the offensive and he ran the war on a day to day basis. It doesn't mean that had they carried on they could have taken Warsaw.

[HindleA]

Barbara Keeley bringing forward a Ten Minute Rule Bill next Tuesday that exempts Carers from the Bedroom Tax.

[Temulkar]

The Soviet archives disagree with you I'm afraid. The tanks were stopped on a direct order from Stalin.

Of course the Tanks were stopped on a direct order of Stalin. He had strategic control of the offensive and he ran the war on a day to day basis. It doesn't mean that had they carried on they could have taken Warsaw.

Of course nobody can tell what would have happened had he not ordered them to stop. The point remains that he did not have to order them to stop, he did not have to stop the reinforcement of Warsaw by Polish units, he did not have to stop the resupply of Warsaw from the air. He chose all of those actions and, because local tactical difficulties were of little concern to him, he chose them for his strategic reasons. Namely control of post-war Poland. Supporting the rising would have cost the Soviet forces, but there is no evidence of Stalin caring much for casualties or exhausted units as long as his strategic objectives were met.

I think the fact that the Red Army was ordered to stop all reinforcements by independent units pretty much exposes Stalin's motivation. Active opposition to the uprising, not impotent inactivity.

[HindleA]

FWIW Yougov has Labour with a two point lead 34/32

[AngryAsWell]

@election_data retweeted
Ian ‏@Mancman10 · 3 mins3 minutes ago
Tonight's YouGov/Sun poll: LAB 34% CON 32% UKIP 15% LIBDEM 8%

[AngryAsWell]

FWIW Yougov has Labour with a two point lead 34/32

My time says 9.32 for both of us! Snap!

(No idea why my time is at 9.32 when its 22.34.... )

[AngryAsWell]

Night all

[HindleA]

FWIW Yougov has Labour with a two point lead 34/32

My time says 9.32 for both of us! Snap!

(No idea why my time is at 9.32 when its 22.34.... )

It's 1987 here .

[HindleA]

Night all

Goodnight.

[rebeccariots2]

FWIW Yougov has Labour with a two point lead 34/32

Feels like it's worth quite a lot.

Phew.

[HindleA]

Another disasterous poll for Miliband as Populus gives 37/31 split.



Smithson thinks it's just effects of the Conference season,time will tell.

[TechnicalEphemera]

FWIW Yougov has Labour with a two point lead 34/32

Feels like it's worth quite a lot.

Phew.

OMG - Tory vote collapses after Cameron hammered on human rights fiasco.

Or some such linkage of random poll variations with the first political event that I can think of.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Another disasterous poll for Miliband as Populus gives 37/31 split.



Smithson thinks it's just effects of the Conference season,time will tell.

To be fair Populus have been consistent, to them conference season has had no impact whatsoever.

[HindleA]

Another disasterous poll for Miliband as Populus gives 37/31 split.



Smithson thinks it's just effects of the Conference season,time will tell.

To be fair Populus have been consistent, to them conference season has had no impact whatsoever.

You are correct,sorry.Smithson was referring to Yougov.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Only one thing to say about this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... s-why.html


Simon's wife is way way out of his league.

How old was she when they married??

As for the rest of it, attractive woman posts pictures of herself fully clothed.

Move along nothing newsworthy here.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Another disasterous poll for Miliband as Populus gives 37/31 split.



Smithson thinks it's just effects of the Conference season,time will tell.

To be fair Populus have been consistent, to them conference season has had no impact whatsoever.

You are correct,sorry.Smithson was referring to Yougov.

No need to apologise, it was merely the random musings of a busy man.

So why is Populus returning consistent figures when YouGov is all over the place? Ashcroft is pretty hopeless on national polls anyway.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

FWIW Yougov has Labour with a two point lead 34/32

My time says 9.32 for both of us! Snap!

(No idea why my time is at 9.32 when its 22.34.... )

Hi AAW

You're not on Summer Time

If you want to change it go to User Control Panel (top left of screen) then Board Preferences (left of screen) and check the Summer Time box. If you're lucky the ghost of Ella Fitzgerald will then start singing to you.

Or you may just want to sit it out for a couple of weeks and wait for the rest of us to join you on GMT

[LadyCentauria]

Labour Issues, these are the policies so far decided (I think)

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All policies on the "Issue" pages have a link to tweet or FB, so if for instance I want to publicise Labour house building plans, details from here

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I can just tweet them

And for those like myself that don't Facebook or Twitter, a Google+ quick share link, perfect.
As an aside Google+ has a massive political community, the presence and engagement of American figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren puts the UK politicians to shame.

Also, Google+ has Hangouts on Air. Coded in lightning quick time by Google+'s chief engineer Chee Chew's team after he dropped into a Hangout concert Daria Musk was giving (the first ever on what was then a brand new social-network), which a couple of G+ users were daisy-chaining in G+ and via their UStream accounts, so that more than 9 people at a time could watch it. Chee was alerted by the team who were monitoring the site that night and dropped in to see what was causing such a massive spike of traffic in what was then still a pretty small, invitation-only network. A matter of weeks later, and she gave the first Hangouts on Air concert and since then it's been widely used for all sorts of things including Obama doing a Town Hall HoA with questions from G+ users – and to enable The Dalai Lama (and the public) to be a guest at Desmond Tutu's 90th Birthday after South Africa refused him a visitors visa to attend in person. Standard Hangouts are private - person who starts it and up to 9 guests – but HOsA stream live via a shareable player on G+ and through your youtube channel so millions can watch live, if it's shared widely enough, and can be watched later both platforms. And all for free. It's a really useful resource!

All the main UK parties have G+ pages, as do the party leaders, but they hadn't yet really caught on to the engagement that is possible. Too tied up in thinking FB and Twitter were the only places to be, probably, but I'm really pleased that Labour have finally caught on that there are a lot of UK people on G+ (and always were) and have added its share-button to their site. I'm there – don't use Twitter and have barely visited FB since G+ launched.

[LadyCentauria]

Apparently, the party aren't going to serious contest Rochester and Strood. Were it me, I'd be calling up the activists, although I understand the temptation to let UKIP beat the Tories and spark off a wave of trouble and defections for Cameron.

The writ hasn't been called yet has it ?

No idea - but the local Labour bods should be out there IMO. I've been in H&M and will be back this week to do what I can. The bugger of it is MsRemarx is off for the next few days at a conference, so I'll either have to sort out childcare (not easy) or take the little bugger out canvassing with me (then you need to know where all the local loos are).

Writ hasn't been called yet. Labour have got a good local lass as their PPC, Naushabah Khan, if I've spelt it correctly.

[HindleA]

Clegg promises Mental Health boost with 120 million funding.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... nick-clegg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Burnham response

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/9943867 ... tal-health" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LadyCentauria]

Fiasco over fireworks - another Boris Johnson failure

Despite warnings from the Assembly, Boris Johnson has pushed ahead with his ill-thought out plans to limit the number of people attending London's New Year's Eve fireworks by imposing tickets and a £10 charge without putting adequate measures in place to curb ticket touts.

http://ymlp.com/znhYFn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was claiming, recently, at a London Assembly meeting that he had to do it because crowds had got so big that the policing costs were going through the roof whilst, at the same time, claiming that the £10 ticket cost would just break even on the costs of issuing them. I had some difficulty in understanding quite how much the police wanted in order to handle the growing crowds, or whether or not the police would be more likely to put a high-ish bill in for a paid-ticket event than a free one, and also whether the fact that there will be no free travel on tubes and buses this NYE might have been expected to somewhat reduce the crowds anyway. Not that I've ever noticed any particular coherence from Bojo-the-clown at any London Assembly meeting I've seen...