Best Of

Just watched Vance's speech to the Munich security conference today.

It is well worth a listen, whatever your politics. He makes an excellent challenge to Europe. I believe strongly that we should listen to his arguments, even if he has little credibility as a messenger.

For those who haven't listened, essentially he argues that Europe's biggest threat to security is our own desire to censor certain voices and not to listen to voters who want to vote for e.g. AfD. His strongest argument is that we cannot win by pretending far right parties are not popular.

My problem with his speech, though, is the blatant hypocrisy. To have Musk at the centre of your government and to lecture others on free speech is, to put it mildly, shameless.

My other problem is that he does not make any attempt to address the other side of the argument i.e. that the reason we need to fight against misinformation is that those such as Musk are in the business of spreading it, because it is profitable.

In my view the only way that we achieve the good parts of what Vance argues for (more robust free speech) is if we ensure that the megaphones that amplify speech in our democracy (media of all sorts) are working for us not against us.

The interesting feature of the free speech argument is (whatever side of the fence we sit) our free speech is good and should be celebrated, but other people's free speech is dangerous and should be banned.

The basic problem with Vance's claptrap is that it's a massive overselling of the idea Europe "censors" certain voices based on a very American ignorance of how different norms, laws, and practices developed in Europe, and the extent to which they are in practice restrictive and not the will of the people.

The one example he cited - a British man being arrested for 'praying' outside an abortion clinic - was carried out under laws introduced by those well known Marxists Priti Patel and Suella Braverman. It exists because Brits broadly don't mind banning behaviour we don't like, are fairly solidly pro the right to abortion, our religion isn't generally evangelical, and we judge the potential distress to women worth blocking. So introduced exclusion zones because clinics were being targeted.

Proudly secular France of course has its ban on religious symbols, while Germany, for understandable reasons, has strict bans on Nazi symbolism. Each country has their own norms that broadly allow free speech and protest but place certain restrictions on it when deem the nuissance or dangers are too much.

Americans fetishise their 1st ammendment rights rhetorically, but we all know in practice it's somewhat different and are no better. There's no bigger reminder of that than the current administration trying to fire anyone who isn't a Trumpian wingnut, or Elon's banning of views he doesn't like from Twitter while claiming to be a free speech warrior. The only difference is that they are massive, hectoring, ignorant, hypocrites about it.

Despite Vance's claims the views he wants to whinge as being victimised aren't banned from the public sphere - as evidenced by the success of certain parties holding them. They might be socially unacceptable in some circles or looked down upon by liberal politicians but that's not the same thing as being unfairly restricted. Liberals have as much right to hate the far right as the far right do liberals.

What Vance is doing is rather inversion by trying to be a crybully - ironically, rather like the worst kind of 'wokeness' - saying it's so unfair you don't accept my views and reasoning as right, despite its obvious ignorance. Then I'll scream like a baby and demand as my right to 'free speech' that you have to not just allow me to say what I say, but go along with it too.

Truly a pathetic specimen, and yes, a Big Mac Eating Surrender Monkey to boot.

I think he chose a poor example but there are better ones. Take trans. I think the prevailing ‘right opinion’ is that you can change your gender, so a biological man, with xy chromosomes throughout, a prostate, a penis, a preponderance of testosterone etc can simply say ‘I am a woman’ and everyone has to say, yes, you are a woman. Don’t agree? You can end up suspended at work and accused of harassment.
So yes there is a culture of there being the ‘correct’ opinion and dissent is not welcome.
There are other subjects - race and immigration where people fear to say what they really think.
So I think he is right to an extent, just not using the right examples.

But...our courts have generally upheld, admittedly after much wrangling, Gender Critical women's right to their views - and right not to be dismissed for them. In practice of course certain organisations went beyond this - many got terrible advice as to their obligations - but the law there has worked to, in the end, protect their speech. And guess what, the argument has shifted despite certain people trying to shut down certain views.

It's arguably a sign of the system working, albeit eventually, and I'd say the UK has had a far more sophisticated debate on gender issues than the US. Obviously there's been some vile stuff some have experienced, but that's down to the perpetrators not the law.

As for immigration, it's a good example of my point. Might certain views get you disinvited from a party in certain social circles? Sure. So some people are reticent to say what they really think sometimes. We're social animals and like to be liked. But you can't force people who think your views are obnoxious to be nice to you, or that would be more of a violation of personal conscience.

And the state and institutions hardly stop people discussing it. Most of our largest newspapers are profoundly anti-immigration, as are GB News, and Talk TV, while many of LBC's hosts are too. Farage is probably the most regular guest on BBCQT. This week it had two of the most right-wing people in politics and media on the panel (Kruger and Goodwin).

That's not evidence of suppressing views on immigration. In fact one reason we might be quite so crap at dealing with it is the fact that we endlessly bang on about it all the time in a way that's profoundly unproductive.

I'd honestly love to know what a country looked like in which free speech was being suppressed on the issue of immigration, because it's certainly not this one.

Today, I learned that I can leave my house in Hampshire at 7.30am and arrive in Thurso by 11pm the same day by train. 5 trains to be precise. That's over 500 miles north. At a cost of less than £130.

That really is quite incredible.

Next, I want to see if I can fathom a route that gets me to the Orkney Islands (where I have never been, and i want to survey Scapa Flow) inside 24 hours sans car.

I once travelled back from Durness (very northwest tip of Scotland) to Cambridge in a day by public transport (aside from a taxi from the station). From memory, it was a postbus to Lairg at 08.30, then a bus to Inverness, and a train down to Edinburgh. Once there, I realised I could just catch services back to Cambridge - I'd planned to spend the night in Edinburgh, preferring that city to Stevenage...

I arrived back at the front door of our home at about eleven. I held a piece of stag's antler I'd picked up on my walk in the hand as my then-GF opened the door. As she saw me, I asked: "Feeling horny?"

As I said, she's my ex...

This era feels like high Brexit when the right-wing boys were parading around like masters of the universe. A few years after disrupting everything, they left people not better off but poorer and feeling miserable.

I don't really see the comparison. High Brexit was characterised by wall-to-wall mockery of the Brexiteers and hysteria about a No Deal Hard Brexit that never happened.

Trump 2.0 is more like the end of a long culture war that has been comprehensibly lost by his opponents.

Were you not one of the people indulging in the wall-to-wall mockery when you were an EU federalist before you hit yourself on the head or whatever caused such an astonishing political volte face, and you became a slobbering MAGA apologist and enthusiastic Brexit loon?

Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.

My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.

He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.

I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.

It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.

Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.

So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?

If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”

It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.

Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.

'Supporting' is not just analysis.

Where is the support bit in wot he wrote:

“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory

OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”

The Russian oil industry is now "all in" because the bulk of it is situated west of the Urals and now in range of Ukraine drone strikes. There could perhaps have been back channel chats to keep power and oil facilities "off limits" to both sides. But that hasn't happened. The latest Ukrainian strikes on oil refining and storage capacity are taking it off-line for months. Maybe longer, as Russia doesn't have access to spares embargoed by the West. Whilst chips for missiles might get smuggled in from various of the Stans, trying to smuggle in a number of distillation towers isn't possible. So the capacity to refine crude oil is reducing at an alarming rate for Russia.

If it can't refine the oil, it has to store it until it can sell it. As sales to India are the latest to have ended, there's more need for storage - which storage the Ukrainians are destroying. If it can't store it, Russia has to stop production. Stopping production can be terminal to oil wells continuing production. It means they have to be reworked when production recommences. This process is very expensive and can take years - as was shown when the Soviet Union collapsed.

If Ukraine isn't leant on to stop hitting the Russian refining and storage capacity, it's hand in the negotaition gets stronger and stronger over time. No Russian oil = no money for Russia = no Russian army in Ukraine. Russia has planned its war on the expectation that Trump will step in to call for a ceasefire that fixes the current de facto borders. Russia is absolutely at the limit of holding its gains in Ukraine. Stockpiles of Soviet-era tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are largely gone; Russian production is a fraction of losses on the battlefield. Its infantry are now trying to get to the Ukrainian lines in comandeered cars. Few make it. Many more months of this will expose the Russian army for the hollowed out entity that remains.

Naturally I didn't read your post (keep it pithy would be my advice).

But if it says something like just one more push/Russia is going to run out of XYZ/any minute now he will fail/etc then give over.

Just today, Ukraine have hit a steel mill that produces 20% of Russia's steel...

As Topping says so what

They have lost and will be giving up land

They will be repaying America via mineral rights.

Its like Hitler claiming a triumph as he has a new heating system in his bunker in 1945

As one of the chief "Ukraine is going to win this" posters for the last 3 years.

It comes over as pathetic on the eve of defeat.

Zelensky will be fine mind

How do you know Zelensky will be fine after an engineered defeat by Trump?

Citation please. The step from Corbyn fanboi to Putin fascist appears to be a short one.

The horseshoe theory of politics is among the most compelling there is. The far-left loves Putin because he socks it to the West., The far-right loves him because he socks it to the woke. Both are very happy for the rest of us to sacrifice our democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech to see him win.