Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!
Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
That's most countries and people, round the world. The number of people who will say - "I want my country to lose", is generally tiny.
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built
And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works
My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!
Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
The Mexican-American war, perhaps?
Islam invaded and conquered all the Middle East, North Africa, Asia Minor, Iberia, Persia etc in a couple of centuries
It had no great technological superiority it just had religious zeal and brio
With the exception of Iberia, none of these places has reverted to its prior state
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built
And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works
Well, cast your eye down this list and see which ones became permanent:
My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!
Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much
The intriguing question in French politics is who comes after Macron. From this result there doesn’t seem to be a huge platform for Le Pen or Les Republicains.
My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!
Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much
Very out of line with the polls (Ensemble vs Le Pen), so I’m inclined to be a tad sceptical until the results start flowing.
But, if true, then even Ensemble plus the centre-right could be short of a majority. Another election after the 12 months statutory requirement would seem inevitable.
It would appear that the SNP interpretation of zero tolerance can change from day to day depending on the circumstances... Interesting to note that this email was also quickly leaked to the media, all is not well in the Westminter SNP group.
Twitter Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h 🔺EXCL: SNP MPs have been threatened with criminal action by their chief whip over a leaked recording of a meeting at which senior figures backed Patrick Grady over his sexual misconduct scandal. https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1538517865514643456
Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h Replying to @KieranPAndrews In a late night letter following @johnestevens scoop, Owen Thompson said recording an leaking a group meeting was “beyond the pale”, adding: “This behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h Thompson said there were “serious questions to be answered on the legality of sharing a recording without consent under terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000” and has raised the leak with Westminster’s security team
Kieran Andrews @KieranPAndrews·3h The SNP staffer, targeted by Grady when he was 19, said: "It is disappointing to see that the SNP would rather take strong action against the leaker than the perpetrator." Grady has been given a two-day suspension from the party.
Pretty standard behaviour when something is leaked, frankly. Examples of focusing on the method of information getting out than what it was are rife no doubt.
The optics of this leaked email are as bad as the leaked audio from that Westminster SNP group meeting..
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built
And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works
In the modern era are even the Russians prepared for the brutality necessary to complete a war of conquest and hold the land?
For a part of Ukraine, possibly, it's what they've done up to now, but it's not easy.
Someone — possibly @DavidL — was asking about portable, additional screens for laptops. I use an Asus MB16AC which connects to the laptop via usb. However, within the past hour, Linus Tech Tips has published this review of a three-screen (so two additional screens) solution. Spoiler: wait for v2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugtntRVMqFo
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
The Mexican-American war, perhaps?
Islam invaded and conquered all the Middle East, North Africa, Asia Minor, Iberia, Persia etc in a couple of centuries
It had no great technological superiority it just had religious zeal and brio
With the exception of Iberia, none of these places has reverted to its prior state
There are zillions of similar cases
Sicily has too.
Closer to home, the Prussian invasions of 1864-71 culminating in the Franco-Prussian war would be an example.
The British conquest of French North America in the Seven Years War would be another.
I mean, it depends on how you define success. England dominated France for decades during the Hundred Years' War, although it was eventually driven out.
I would expect that quitting the ECHR and bringing human rights 'in house' would lead to an immediate repudiation of human rights for unpopular groups; ie violent criminals, sex offenders and certain categories of asylum seeker. The current discourse is quite revealing, I would guess that only 'lefty lawyers' would step forward to defend these groups, the overwhelming likelihood is that the removal of their human rights would just be steamrollered through as a political opportunity, particularly if the current government remain in charge.
Over time, rights would evolve to applying to things that are politically popular because they can essentially be continuously altered by governments elected by less than half of the part of the voting age population that bothered to vote. I think Sumption has thought about this a lot and concluded that it is the right way forward if the overriding goal is to preserve and sustain democracy. I respect this view and his experience as a judge, but I think that what he is suggesting would take us in a very problematic direction.
In summary, by all means people can argue to leave the ECHR and there are forceful arguments to do so, but you have to be honest about what this means for existing human rights given our lack of a written constitution and how legislation is made in the UK. It seems a bit problematic and naive to just go around claiming everything will be as it is now and that there would be no change. You have to be honest and admit that it would probably be a big change.
My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!
Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much
Is that France saying they might not want Le Pen, but nor do they want Macron Blairite reform programme for public sector, pensions, worker rights?
My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!
Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much
Is that France saying they might not want Le Pen, but nor do they want Macron Blairite reform programme for public sector, pensions, worker rights?
Don't want Melenchon either. Don't want much it appears.
My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!
Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much
Is that France saying they might not want Le Pen, but nor do they want Macron Blairite reform programme for public sector, pensions, worker rights?
Don't want Melenchon either. Don't want much it appears.
It seems a bit like what we will see in the US, the public so split they don't really want any of the options, so nothing gets done, so the public moan more about situation getting worse because of crap politicians....
Macron 224 Left 170 (inc Misc) Le Pen 89 Republicans 82 (inc Misc)
So Macron + Republicans can do it.
Should that transpire to be the case then the traditional right being reduced to a rump, and then ending up as a junior coalition partner to a not very popular government (the Liberal Democrats will be able to tell you how that sort of thing works out,) may usher in the final stage of realignment in France. My knowledge of French politics is minimal, but some commentary I've read suggests that the country may revert to the position it was in before WW2 - three competing blocs of the left, centre and right, none of which can win a majority and all of which find it difficult or impossible to work with one another. This may make the country somewhat awkward to govern.
“No one in the parliamentary Labour party is advocating a policy of rejoining the EU. But there are those who would like to see closer involvement with the single market under a Labour government, and a return to EU free-movement rules, particularly as evidence grows that Brexit is harming trade, and contributing to rising prices”
Which from the beginning was always the sensible and optimal answer - as a fair few leavers conceded during the referendum campaign, although amnesia has set in since.
The only question is whether the damage that our current flawed and foolish Brexit is doing will push the Tories towards a more pragmatic resolution - pace Ellwood - or whether it will take a change of government to accept the inevitable.
I wouldn’t necessarily differ
But persuading the British people to accept free movement once again is a very tall order. How do you do that? Can’t see it
Moreover, this gives the lie to the idea that it’s the Tories who are “always banging on about Brexit”
There are many millions of Remainers who also want to talk about it, they are particularly prevalent on the left, and they will - as I predicted on here weeks ago - pressure Starmer towards the Single Market. As we now see
I think the answer is that you don't talk about FoM now; leave that until the generation who grew up with FoM (and miss it a bit) are the ones in power. The nostaligia factor that led to the 2016 decision works both ways. And the 2024 settlement won't stick any more than 2020, 1992, 1973 or the foundation of EFTA in 1960.
In the meantime, there are a lot of ways of lubricating the UK-EU border that pragmatists would surely be fine with. You have to be pretty hardcore to want different veterniary / agricultural / chemical standards. I'm sure there are ways that UK businesses could benefit from the freedoms, but I'm also confident that they aren't worth the ballsache of the resulting border controls.
And then... one thing Johnson was right about was that our neighbouring continent does exert a hefty gravitational pull on the UK. Where I disagree with him is his belief that a massive effort could pull us decisively free from that, and mentally put is in the middle of the Atlantic, or the Panama canal, or somewhere between Singapore and Australia. Gravity doesn't work like that- ask the comets in the Oort cloud.
Permanent Brexit only really worked if others followed us out of the door. And, for various reasons, countries like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands decided not to.
I can envisage us rejoining some form of the single market, perhaps. But I still struggle to see how you get over the FoM thing
I can’t see us ever rejoining the political Union
We'll see. It will take 10 years to know.
That so many prominent remainer commentators online are willing simply to lie / distort suggests that they are not confident.
One indicative tipping point will be later this year when we have a larger network of trade agreements than we did in the EU, which will be achieved without CBTPP, though it will take further time for new patterns to set in. When that is added in, and good relations with the many blocks / countries with whom Brussels have managed to create essentially frozen trade negotiations, who knows?
"later this year when we have a larger network of trade agreements than we did in the EU"
The EU is also adding FTAs, though. Do you really think we'll have more FTAs than the EU by the end of this year?
Because they're also adding FTAs at a reasonable pace.
If we join the TPP, then we'll leapfrog them, obviously, but otherwise it looks like much of a muchness, with them leading in some negotiations, and us in others.
We'll see.
I haven't gone to the extent of combing through the entire lists, and surveying all the EU docs as to why so many have been in the doldrums for so long. That may be an exercise worth a Saturday morning when the weather gets cold and foggy.
I suspect that the rate of UK adding them has perhaps been a kick in the butt.
I'm sure that's right: India-EU negotiations have restarted after a long gap, and I'm sure our negotiations have encouraged them to move more quickly.
That said, the EU will likely conclude both Australia and Indonesian FTAs before the UK.
While we'll be probably be first with NZ and India.
I'm working with French people in EDF at the moment on new nuclear projects. They are classically French. Wine, fags, haughtiness, slightly pompous and grand, but well dressed, cultured and intelligent.
They are in despair at French politics; they say "it's vile, absolutely vile".
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
The Mexican-American war, perhaps?
Islam invaded and conquered all the Middle East, North Africa, Asia Minor, Iberia, Persia etc in a couple of centuries
It had no great technological superiority it just had religious zeal and brio
With the exception of Iberia, none of these places has reverted to its prior state
There are zillions of similar cases
Sicily has too.
Closer to home, the Prussian invasions of 1864-71 culminating in the Franco-Prussian war would be an example.
The British conquest of French North America in the Seven Years War would be another.
I mean, it depends on how you define success. England dominated France for decades during the Hundred Years' War, although it was eventually driven out.
Sicily didn't throw off its own yoke, it got it thrown off by a lot of third party Norman hooligans.
It would appear that the SNP interpretation of zero tolerance can change from day to day depending on the circumstances... Interesting to note that this email was also quickly leaked to the media, all is not well in the Westminter SNP group.
Twitter Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h 🔺EXCL: SNP MPs have been threatened with criminal action by their chief whip over a leaked recording of a meeting at which senior figures backed Patrick Grady over his sexual misconduct scandal. https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1538517865514643456
Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h Replying to @KieranPAndrews In a late night letter following @johnestevens scoop, Owen Thompson said recording an leaking a group meeting was “beyond the pale”, adding: “This behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h Thompson said there were “serious questions to be answered on the legality of sharing a recording without consent under terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000” and has raised the leak with Westminster’s security team
Kieran Andrews @KieranPAndrews·3h The SNP staffer, targeted by Grady when he was 19, said: "It is disappointing to see that the SNP would rather take strong action against the leaker than the perpetrator." Grady has been given a two-day suspension from the party.
Pretty standard behaviour when something is leaked, frankly. Examples of focusing on the method of information getting out than what it was are rife no doubt.
The optics of this leaked email are as bad as the leaked audio from that Westminster SNP group meeting..
What's this criminal action the Chief Whip is threatening?
Or was that an unfortunately worded tweet?
It sounds like the threat is nothing more than hot air. I was proved right though, the Sundays were pretty grim for the SNP today on a whole range of issues. We now know that the PR stunt that saw Nicola Sturgeon launching the Glen Sannox ferry for a big headline on the Scottish evening news back in 2017 cost £47K, but that is dwarfed by the added cost to the Scottish taxpayer of launching this ferry before it was ready. Five years later its still has not left the dockyard, I now think its highly unlikely that either the Glen Sannox or its sister hulk will ever see service on the Arran route. Its now just a question of how long and how much money the SNP Gov intend to spend trying to keep up the pretence that they will finally see service.
Will be interesting to see if Macron attempts to woo the rump of the PS away from NUPES and into the government.
That would only give him an extra 22 votes, so still not enough.
No. But it would be a start. Needs must and all that. It really is a horrible result for him. He's wrecked the PS. Seriously weakened LR. And now he needs allies.
I would expect that quitting the ECHR and bringing human rights 'in house' would lead to an immediate repudiation of human rights for unpopular groups; ie violent criminals, sex offenders and certain categories of asylum seeker. The current discourse is quite revealing, I would guess that only 'lefty lawyers' would step forward to defend these groups, the overwhelming likelihood is that the removal of their human rights would just be steamrollered through as a political opportunity, particularly if the current government remain in charge.
Over time, rights would evolve to applying to things that are politically popular because they can essentially be continuously altered by governments elected by less than half of the part of the voting age population that bothered to vote. I think Sumption has thought about this a lot and concluded that it is the right way forward if the overriding goal is to preserve and sustain democracy. I respect this view and his experience as a judge, but I think that what he is suggesting would take us in a very problematic direction.
In summary, by all means people can argue to leave the ECHR and there are forceful arguments to do so, but you have to be honest about what this means for existing human rights given our lack of a written constitution and how legislation is made in the UK. It seems a bit problematic and naive to just go around claiming everything will be as it is now and that there would be no change. You have to be honest and admit that it would probably be a big change.
BBC WS has recently had a fairly good interview with one of the potential deportees to Rwanda, and his planned journey to the UK having considered himself at risk following on from being a Peshmerga helper to the allies in the Iraq War. And he considered he had a right to come here.
That ;leaves me in two minds, as to whether the refugee category should be less strategic.
I wonder whether the whole thing is fit for purpose, and if it needs a serious overhaul.
Many who voted Macron to stop Le Pen in the Presidential race feel like they did their bit . That seems fair enough and they were free to vote for their preferred choices now .
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
Many who voted Macron to stop Le Pen in the Presidential race feel like they did their bit . That seems fair enough and they were free to vote for their preferred choices now .
Though as he has the largest party by a clear plurality, he must be the preferred party of many French.
Looking at the projections, Macron could align with LR, or perhaps reach some accommodation with the unified left. Indeed the latter, with a more cautious approach to reform in the midst of stagflation, may well be the best option for France. Not least because Le Pen's party isn't too keen on radical reform either.
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
Indeed…also interesting that the Left have also notably underperformed compared to the first round, while the centre right has almost doubled (to around 80 seats) from the 40 or so predicted.
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.
Er, that was a two way race
As for this election, the French parliamentary electoral system disfavors the RN, or it did until now
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.
In 2017 she turned 34% in the presidential into a mere 8 seats at the legislative elections.
So if it is 90ish that looks like a significant breakthrough to me.
Tsunami would seem an apter description that seeing it as nothing.
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
Indeed…also interesting that the Left have also notably underperformed compared to the first round, while the centre right has almost doubled (to around 80 seats) from the 40 or so predicted.
Les Repubs might be relieved at their performance? Given that they got a mighty 4.8% in the presidential elex
Looks like Ensemble plus Republicans would have a 25 or so majority. But tough bargaining to make it happen, the more so if the latter want Ministers in a formal coalition.
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
Indeed…also interesting that the Left have also notably underperformed compared to the first round, while the centre right has almost doubled (to around 80 seats) from the 40 or so predicted.
Les Repubs might be relieved at their performance? Given that they got a mighty 4.8% in the presidential elex
Yes, but wonder why they’ve rallied and presumably largely at the expense of Macron.
Many who voted Macron to stop Le Pen in the Presidential race feel like they did their bit . That seems fair enough and they were free to vote for their preferred choices now .
Though as he has the largest party by a clear plurality, he must be the preferred party of many French.
Looking at the projections, Macron could align with LR, or perhaps reach some accommodation with the unified left. Indeed the latter, with a more cautious approach to reform in the midst of stagflation, may well be the best option for France. Not least because Le Pen's party isn't too keen on radical reform either.
The "unified left" want Nato withdrawal, defunding the police and a budget designed to conflict with the EU, as a prelude to Frexit. If he had more seats he might have tried to poach the Socialists and Greens, but no, the coalition will now be with the Republicans. This coalition would also be an "in" for Édouard Philippe's prospective candidacy, which would be based on uniting the centre-right.
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.
In 2017 she turned 34% in the presidential into a mere 8 seats at the legislative elections.
So if it is 90ish that looks like a significant breakthrough to me.
Tsunami would seem an apter description that seeing it as nothing.
Perviously, the electoral system combined with the vote efficiency of the National Front limited their parliamentary seats severely. This seems to be be breaking down - at least for the present election.
"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’ Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’ Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.
In 2017 she turned 34% in the presidential into a mere 8 seats at the legislative elections.
So if it is 90ish that looks like a significant breakthrough to me.
Tsunami would seem an apter description that seeing it as nothing.
Perviously, the electoral system combined with the vote efficiency of the National Front limited their parliamentary seats severely. This seems to be be breaking down - at least for the present election.
The context is that at this election, there was no general recommendation by the non-RN parties to vote for each other. And what seems to have happened is historically weak cross-transfers between Nupes and Ensemble+Republicans. There is a bunch of districts won by RN where they finished second in round one; needless to say, at any previous election, that should almost never have happened. There is another bunch where they finished first in the mid-30s in round one, which historically would lead to a big backlash but this time the willingness to vote for the other non-RN bloc wasn't there. But further to that, RN also won a bunch of extra votes in the second round. In some cases Republicans and a few in Nupes and Ensemble were happy to vote for RN over the "republican front" candidate.
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
All they have to do is move the actual courtroom from Strasbourg to, say, Swindon, or Newent, and the problem is solved
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
And in all of that what has been little noticed by all the upholders of Parliamentary sovereignty is that the government has refused to put its Rwanda policy before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. There is something grimly amusing watching people getting hyperbolically exercised by the gnat of a temporary injunction while swallowing the camel of an executive sidelining Parliament.
I wrote 3 headers on the whole issue of the tension between democracy and law and whether and when democracy has to uphold external standards. In March 2020 so my timing was not great.
Perhaps they are A-level politics essays. Or perhaps they raise issues which are worth considering thoughtfully.
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
All they have to do is move the actual courtroom from Strasbourg to, say, Swindon, or Newent, and the problem is solved
Oi! Stop spoiling Newent. Put it somewhere remote, unimportant and unpleasant like London where we can ignore it.
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.
In 2017 she turned 34% in the presidential into a mere 8 seats at the legislative elections.
So if it is 90ish that looks like a significant breakthrough to me.
Tsunami would seem an apter description that seeing it as nothing.
Perviously, the electoral system combined with the vote efficiency of the National Front limited their parliamentary seats severely. This seems to be be breaking down - at least for the present election.
The context is that at this election, there was no general recommendation by the non-RN parties to vote for each other. And what seems to have happened is historically weak cross-transfers between Nupes and Ensemble+Republicans. There is a bunch of districts won by RN where they finished second in round one; needless to say, at any previous election, that should almost never have happened. There is another bunch where they finished first in the mid-30s in round one, which historically would lead to a big backlash but this time the willingness to vote for the other non-RN bloc wasn't there. But further to that, RN also won a bunch of extra votes in the second round. In some cases Republicans and a few in Nupes and Ensemble were happy to vote for RN over the "republican front" candidate.
Le Pen has detoxed her brand. Also, Stade de France
"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’ Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"
She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.
In 2017 she turned 34% in the presidential into a mere 8 seats at the legislative elections.
So if it is 90ish that looks like a significant breakthrough to me.
Tsunami would seem an apter description that seeing it as nothing.
Perviously, the electoral system combined with the vote efficiency of the National Front limited their parliamentary seats severely. This seems to be be breaking down - at least for the present election.
The context is that at this election, there was no general recommendation by the non-RN parties to vote for each other. And what seems to have happened is historically weak cross-transfers between Nupes and Ensemble+Republicans. There is a bunch of districts won by RN where they finished second in round one; needless to say, at any previous election, that should almost never have happened. There is another bunch where they finished first in the mid-30s in round one, which historically would lead to a big backlash but this time the willingness to vote for the other non-RN bloc wasn't there. But further to that, RN also won a bunch of extra votes in the second round. In some cases Republicans and a few in Nupes and Ensemble were happy to vote for RN over the "republican front" candidate.
Le Pen has detoxed her brand. Also, Stade de France
The problem was and remains RN rather than Le Pen, who is still far more popular than her party. The political difference between Le Pen and Sarkozy is small, except that she leaned on the toxic extreme right while he leaned on captive centrists.
“And while the country has been successful in repelling Russian forces, it is now suffering some of its heaviest losses since the start of the war as the battle for the east of the country enters its decisive stages. Between 100 and 200 Ukrainians are believed to be dying every day as the fighting turns into a prolonged war of attrition with no end in sight.
“Many are fighting with practically no military training against a Russian army that, while stuttering, still outguns its opponent by as many as 10 to one”
Meanwhile NATO is talking about this war lasting “years”
Can Ukraine really sustain 100-200 dead Ukrainians every day - for several years?!
I fear Zelensky will soon be seeking a terrible peace
This is exactly what I was saying a week or two ago. It's telling that there are no longer any stories of great successes from the front; what we see instead is position after position being reduced to rubble and death by a massive advantage in artillery power. It's slow and is no doubt challenging the Russian logistics but it is relentless. I am not sure how much more of this Ukraine can take. They have been screaming for artillery and heavy weapons for over a month and we are seeing a trickle compared to the need.
The United States has delivered around $6 billion of military aid to Ukraine since February; other countries have contributed smaller but still substantial amounts. This isn't a trickle.
Russia seems to have lots of ordnance but is very short of manpower, as long as Putin doesn't do a full mobilisation to replace Russian soldiers killed or wounded. Meanwhile Ukraine is barely losing territory, but it is sustaining a very high level of casualties holding onto what it's got.
That suggests a negotiation at some point (pace Macron) but it's anyone's guess what that negotiation will be.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
The bit I have italicised in Cyclefree's comment is to many people's minds, including my very liberal one, a good example of why we should sit very loose to the ECHR as interpreted by its court. It is absolutely a state's right to decide that not being allowed to vote is one of the punishments attaching to a prison sentence.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
Also - and you probably think this is rather a good thing - an excellent recruiting sergeant for Le Pen. She was able to diversify the anti-Macron message into something like: anti-Macron destroying France from above, anti-the extreme left destroying France from below.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
Also - and you probably think this is rather a good thing - an excellent recruiting sergeant for Le Pen. She was able to diversify the anti-Macron message into something like: anti-Macron destroying France from above, anti-the extreme left destroying France from below.
Lol
i don’t want Le Pen anywhere near power. She’s an enabler of Putin
I do, however, enjoy a good electoral upset, I love the stat geekery of analysing another country’s election, and I confess I rather relish seeing Macron humbled. He is quite annoying
"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’ Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’ Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"
I read about this case earlier. The situation was miserable and clearly extremely frustrating for the passenger, but nor was this the fault of the platform staff, who appear to have acted correctly (at least with regard to refusing to carry the man, although we'll come back to the available alternatives later.)
I'm not sure what was expected of the workers in this case: was one of them meant to throw the passenger over his or her shoulder and lug him up and down flights of stairs in a fireman's carry, or was a team of them meant to grab a limb each and get him from A to B that way?
Picking people up and carrying them to get around a broken lift is something to be done in case of emergency, and preferably by personnel assessed physically capable of lifting an (at a guess) 80kg human being safely, and appropriately trained to do so. Otherwise you end up with your makeshift porter collapsed halfway up a staircase with a slipped disc and the passenger dead at the bottom of the stairs with a broken neck. The entire episode will then, of course, be blamed on the member of staff, who gets fired, and the train company becomes liable for shelling out a huge sum in compensation to the grieving family of the deceased.
If the layout of the station is such that it is impossible for a disabled passenger to get to the right platform without using a lift, and that lift is knackered, then the passenger can't travel where they want to go from the station. The real question that ought therefore to be asked, given that the passenger would've had a reasonable expectation of being able to travel, is not "why didn't the staff lug the passenger up and down the stairs?" It's "why didn't the stingy train company pay for the passenger to take a taxi," either to an alternative station with working access nearer to their destination, or all the way to where they were going?
One assumes that there aren't thousands of wheelchair users transiting through Milton Keynes every day. It wouldn't have bankrupted them.
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built
And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works
Survivorship bias.
You're remembering all the successful invasions.
Indeed. States that launch a war and then fail tend not to survive very long. Vide Galtieri in 1982.
Do we even live in a serious country anymore? Or is it just a plaything for rich, ambitious and dishonest men like Johnson and Murdoch, every penny of public money at their disposal, every piece of information theirs to bury on a whim?
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
The bit I have italicised in Cyclefree's comment is to many people's minds, including my very liberal one, a good example of why we should sit very loose to the ECHR as interpreted by its court. It is absolutely a state's right to decide that not being allowed to vote is one of the punishments attaching to a prison sentence.
My understanding of the decision was that Britain can do this as other states also party to the Convention have done.
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
The bit I have italicised in Cyclefree's comment is to many people's minds, including my very liberal one, a good example of why we should sit very loose to the ECHR as interpreted by its court. It is absolutely a state's right to decide that not being allowed to vote is one of the punishments attaching to a prison sentence.
I can't say I agree that the issue was especially misreported. Sure, not entirely correct, but the basic point as cyclefree states was that the court said a blanket ban was not acceptable when the government, and many others, would argue a blanket ban is acceptable. The difference between what was reported and what was was a difference of degree, not of kind, about whether denying the vote to all was acceptable or not. It was definitely reported that not all prisoners would have to be given the vote, because the government contemplated various options about limiting it to the smallest number possible.
Personally I would also say a blanket ban is acceptable, and so disagreed with the court, but don't regard that as good reason to junk the whole process. I also agree that the risks of taking such a decisive step could be severe so, even if considered somewhat hyperbolic by some, it should be treated as significant.
But I think it is a little unreasonable to present any expression of discontent with the rulings of the court as being only for reasons of malice or incomprehension. It appears that the argument being made is that any concern is akin to those who want to abandon the court altogether.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
BTW nice to see you on here again. If you have time I had some questions for you in relation to a comment you made on the migration thread the other day and I would be genuinely interested in your answers, if and when you have the time.
Do we even live in a serious country anymore? Or is it just a plaything for rich, ambitious and dishonest men like Johnson and Murdoch, every penny of public money at their disposal, every piece of information theirs to bury on a whim?
Clearly large chunks of the country aren't very serious.
Especially since the story was in that book Lord Ashcroft published about Carrie.
Still, always good to have another example of the Streisand Effect.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part
Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive
Do we even live in a serious country anymore? Or is it just a plaything for rich, ambitious and dishonest men like Johnson and Murdoch, every penny of public money at their disposal, every piece of information theirs to bury on a whim?
"Germany, a long-time heavy user of Russian gas, began cutting down on imports after the latest invasion Ukraine. Its climate target to phase out coal by 2030 remains in place, as does its policy to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by 2023."
It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
The bit I have italicised in Cyclefree's comment is to many people's minds, including my very liberal one, a good example of why we should sit very loose to the ECHR as interpreted by its court. It is absolutely a state's right to decide that not being allowed to vote is one of the punishments attaching to a prison sentence.
I can't say I agree that the issue was especially misreported. Sure, not entirely correct, but the basic point as cyclefree states was that the court said a blanket ban was not acceptable when the government, and many others, would argue a blanket ban is acceptable. The difference between what was reported and what was was a difference of degree, not of kind, about whether denying the vote to all was acceptable or not. It was definitely reported that not all prisoners would have to be given the vote, because the government contemplated various options about limiting it to the smallest number possible.
Personally I would also say a blanket ban is acceptable, and so disagreed with the court, but don't regard that as good reason to junk the whole process. I also agree that the risks of taking such a decisive step could be severe so, even if considered somewhat hyperbolic by some, it should be treated as significant.
But I think it is a little unreasonable to present any expression of discontent with the rulings of the court as being only for reasons of malice or incomprehension. It appears that the argument being made is that any concern is akin to those who want to abandon the court altogether.
I had an interesting conversation on the prisoner voting thing with a lawyer.
I took the point of view that the blanket ban on prisoners voting had been in place in many countries for many years within the ECHR - so what had changed? I was told that the law had progressed. I pointed out that the law hadn't been amended, just the interpretation. He said that was the point.
I asked what limits were on such interpretations? He was of the view that lawyers know which way progress is. I pointed out that it is perfectly possible to pick the "right" judges - isn't it better to legislate in the legislature?
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
BTW nice to see you on here again. If you have time I had some questions for you in relation to a comment you made on the migration thread the other day and I would be genuinely interested in your answers, if and when you have the time.
Thanks for your kind words.
I'm on holiday in Bulgaria at the moment, up at my parents-in-law's villa in a small village in the hills overlooking the Thracian plain, so only dropping in from time to time but I'd be happy to take a look if you'd remind me?
Doesn't mean I'll have the answers mind. It's a desperately complex issue but one we have to try and solve, and I've found the debate on here interesting.
"Germany, a long-time heavy user of Russian gas, began cutting down on imports after the latest invasion Ukraine. Its climate target to phase out coal by 2030 remains in place, as does its policy to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by 2023."
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part
Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive
The electoral map seems to be strangely random. When you compare it to the UK one. Like done by Pollock rather than Mondrian.
never really understood the ruling on prisoners voting from the ECHR - Sounds a fudge to me given its logical that prisoners shoudl not have the vote or they do have the vote - Surely its just shifting this stuff about not allowing blanket bans on voting to allowing blanket bans on certain categories of prisoners . Ie all those serving (say) five years or more cannot vote - well thats just as much a blanket ban on those prisoners as it is on all prisoners.
Never really respected the law courts (of whatever form) as much as others do on here tbh
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part
Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive
I don't understand it, but, France has always had wildly strange and subversive politics, and plenty of revolutions, for centuries now.
Trouble is that when Paris sneezes Europe catches a cold.
"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’ Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"
I read about this case earlier. The situation was miserable and clearly extremely frustrating for the passenger, but nor was this the fault of the platform staff, who appear to have acted correctly (at least with regard to refusing to carry the man, although we'll come back to the available alternatives later.)
I'm not sure what was expected of the workers in this case: was one of them meant to throw the passenger over his or her shoulder and lug him up and down flights of stairs in a fireman's carry, or was a team of them meant to grab a limb each and get him from A to B that way?
Picking people up and carrying them to get around a broken lift is something to be done in case of emergency, and preferably by personnel assessed physically capable of lifting an (at a guess) 80kg human being safely, and appropriately trained to do so. Otherwise you end up with your makeshift porter collapsed halfway up a staircase with a slipped disc and the passenger dead at the bottom of the stairs with a broken neck. The entire episode will then, of course, be blamed on the member of staff, who gets fired, and the train company becomes liable for shelling out a huge sum in compensation to the grieving family of the deceased.
If the layout of the station is such that it is impossible for a disabled passenger to get to the right platform without using a lift, and that lift is knackered, then the passenger can't travel where they want to go from the station. The real question that ought therefore to be asked, given that the passenger would've had a reasonable expectation of being able to travel, is not "why didn't the staff lug the passenger up and down the stairs?" It's "why didn't the stingy train company pay for the passenger to take a taxi," either to an alternative station with working access nearer to their destination, or all the way to where they were going?
One assumes that there aren't thousands of wheelchair users transiting through Milton Keynes every day. It wouldn't have bankrupted them.
A relative was summarily fired from a care job for moving a patient from her bed to a wheelchair, by herself. There were no other staff - due to a shortage and the patient was in distress.
never really understood the ruling on prisoners voting from the ECHR - Sounds a fudge to me given its logical that prisoners shoudl not have the vote or they do have the vote - Surely its just shifting this stuff about not allowing blanket bans on voting to allowing blanket bans on certain categories of prisoners . Ie all those serving (say) five years or more cannot vote - well thats just as much a blanket ban on those prisoners as it is on all prisoners.
Never really respected the law courts (of whatever form) as much as others do on here tbh
I asked the lawyer I had a chat with, about the idea of saying that it wasn't a blanket ban - just applied to prisoners who were in jail for more than 10 seconds.
He seemed to think that such a work around was an insult to the court. But couldn't explain why.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part
Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive
Tourist doesn't actually end up knowing much about country shock.
"Germany, a long-time heavy user of Russian gas, began cutting down on imports after the latest invasion Ukraine. Its climate target to phase out coal by 2030 remains in place, as does its policy to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by 2023."
I think it's easier to understand if you remember the Chancellor is a duplicitous self-serving fool and the Greens hold the portfolios for Finance, Foreign Affairs and the Environment.
That doesn't mean it makes sense, just explains why it doesn't.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part
Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive
The electoral map seems to be strangely random. When you compare it to the UK one. Like done by Pollock rather than Mondrian.
Not quite random. There’s a general law that the further west you go in France, the Leftier it becomes. This has been true since at least the Revolution, IIRC, and maybe long before that. It’s one of those weird persistent demarcations
It is still true today, but less so. Le Pen is now doing well in parts of western France
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built
And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works
Survivorship bias.
You're remembering all the successful invasions.
Indeed. States that launch a war and then fail tend not to survive very long. Vide Galtieri in 1982.
Well, tbf Argentina is still a state. But Heads of State who launch an unprovoked invasion tend not to last too long.
It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)
I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism
He’s horrible
French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.
It is in a terrible place.
i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part
Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive
I don't understand it, but, France has always had wildly strange and subversive politics, and plenty of revolutions, for centuries now.
Trouble is that when Paris sneezes Europe catches a cold.
Also, France successfully hides its problems away from the more casual visitor. That’s why Stade de France was such a shocking revelation, outsiders got to see what the French have known for many years: parts of their outlying suburbs are seriously deprived, and lawless
Rural France likewise has its problems. The tranquility of the countryside adored by visitors is often caused by depopulation and stagnation
Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible
“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”
What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids
I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.
It's pretty horrendous.
But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)
“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”
How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?
I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff
I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”
And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?
Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.
The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now
The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely
Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.
It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.
The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.
The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.
The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.
That's the brutal war of attrition.
A very insightful post.
Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?
If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.
England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.
What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built
And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works
Survivorship bias.
You're remembering all the successful invasions.
Indeed. States that launch a war and then fail tend not to survive very long. Vide Galtieri in 1982.
Well, tbf Argentina is still a state. But Heads of State who launch an unprovoked invasion tend not to last too long.
Although something tells me that wouldn't apply to Maduro if he moved to annex Essequibo. I don't see either America or Britain interfering particularly not while distracted by Ukraine.
Regarding this ECHR thing. There's a couple of our chaps whom Putin's stooges want to execute. We don't have much hope to save them except to appeal to international law. And by good luck Russia is still subject to the ECHR until September. So it doesn't seem the best time to publicly disrespect their them (even if we think they are wassocks).
Russia have already been expelled from the Council, are they still part of the ECHR?
Even if they are, and even if they said they'd abide by any decision (hint - they won't), it's all irrelevent. Technically the DPR (or whatever they're called) have issued the judgement.
We all know they're just a Russian puppet state, but its one further way of avoiding the ECHR anyway.
Comments
You're remembering all the successful invasions.
It had no great technological superiority it just had religious zeal and brio
With the exception of Iberia, none of these places has reverted to its prior state
There are zillions of similar cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions
Macron 224
Left 170 (inc Misc)
Le Pen 89
Republicans 82 (inc Misc)
So Macron + Republicans can do it.
But, if true, then even Ensemble plus the centre-right could be short of a majority. Another election after the 12 months statutory requirement would seem inevitable.
Or was that an unfortunately worded tweet?
For a part of Ukraine, possibly, it's what they've done up to now, but it's not easy.
Someone — possibly @DavidL — was asking about portable, additional screens for laptops. I use an Asus MB16AC which connects to the laptop via usb. However, within the past hour, Linus Tech Tips has published this review of a three-screen (so two additional screens) solution. Spoiler: wait for v2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugtntRVMqFo
Closer to home, the Prussian invasions of 1864-71 culminating in the Franco-Prussian war would be an example.
The British conquest of French North America in the Seven Years War would be another.
I mean, it depends on how you define success. England dominated France for decades during the Hundred Years' War, although it was eventually driven out.
Over time, rights would evolve to applying to things that are politically popular because they can essentially be continuously altered by governments elected by less than half of the part of the voting age population that bothered to vote. I think Sumption has thought about this a lot and concluded that it is the right way forward if the overriding goal is to preserve and sustain democracy. I respect this view and his experience as a judge, but I think that what he is suggesting would take us in a very problematic direction.
In summary, by all means people can argue to leave the ECHR and there are forceful arguments to do so, but you have to be honest about what this means for existing human rights given our lack of a written constitution and how legislation is made in the UK. It seems a bit problematic and naive to just go around claiming everything will be as it is now and that there would be no change. You have to be honest and admit that it would probably be a big change.
It’s been a huge story in France and it could not have come at a better time for her, and it was, of course, perfect for her narrative
That lying twat of an Interior Minister did not help, either
Don't want much it appears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_agreements_of_the_United_Kingdom
That was I slightly queried the ss, though I had also overinterpreted UK TAs going effective this summer.
They are in despair at French politics; they say "it's vile, absolutely vile".
i recall some PB-ers dismissing the Fiasco as ‘a bit of football hooliganism, it means nothing’. Turns out it might have changed French politics
They get their votes counted on time.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/
It really is a horrible result for him. He's wrecked the PS. Seriously weakened LR. And now he needs allies.
That ;leaves me in two minds, as to whether the refugee category should be less strategic.
I wonder whether the whole thing is fit for purpose, and if it needs a serious overhaul.
https://www.lemonde.fr/resultats-elections/
Select La Carte tab at the top.
Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….
Looking at the projections, Macron could align with LR, or perhaps reach some accommodation with the unified left. Indeed the latter, with a more cautious approach to reform in the midst of stagflation, may well be the best option for France. Not least because Le Pen's party isn't too keen on radical reform either.
As for this election, the French parliamentary electoral system disfavors the RN, or it did until now
So if it is 90ish that looks like a significant breakthrough to me.
Tsunami would seem an apter description that seeing it as nothing.
Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/19/wheelchair-user-dragged-himself-up-stairs-after-rail-staff-refused-to-help
In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.
Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.
The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.
As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.
The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.
As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.
@PB Legal - why is this?
And in all of that what has been little noticed by all the upholders of Parliamentary sovereignty is that the government has refused to put its Rwanda policy before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. There is something grimly amusing watching people getting hyperbolically exercised by the gnat of a temporary injunction while swallowing the camel of an executive sidelining Parliament.
I wrote 3 headers on the whole issue of the tension between democracy and law and whether and when democracy has to uphold external standards. In March 2020 so my timing was not great.
Perhaps they are A-level politics essays. Or perhaps they raise issues which are worth considering thoughtfully.
They are here anyway.
1. https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/
2. https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/12/amber-warnings-what-might-be-the-signals-that-all-is-not-well-in-a-democracy/
3. https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/14/a-british-gift-the-echr/
A little better for Macron (still dire).
Ensemble 230
NUPES 170
RN 85
LR-UDI 76.
Russia seems to have lots of ordnance but is very short of manpower, as long as Putin doesn't do a full mobilisation to replace Russian soldiers killed or wounded. Meanwhile Ukraine is barely losing territory, but it is sustaining a very high level of casualties holding onto what it's got.
That suggests a negotiation at some point (pace Macron) but it's anyone's guess what that negotiation will be.
He’s horrible
i don’t want Le Pen anywhere near power. She’s an enabler of Putin
I do, however, enjoy a good electoral upset, I love the stat geekery of analysing another country’s election, and I confess I rather relish seeing Macron humbled. He is quite annoying
It is in a terrible place.
I'm not sure what was expected of the workers in this case: was one of them meant to throw the passenger over his or her shoulder and lug him up and down flights of stairs in a fireman's carry, or was a team of them meant to grab a limb each and get him from A to B that way?
Picking people up and carrying them to get around a broken lift is something to be done in case of emergency, and preferably by personnel assessed physically capable of lifting an (at a guess) 80kg human being safely, and appropriately trained to do so. Otherwise you end up with your makeshift porter collapsed halfway up a staircase with a slipped disc and the passenger dead at the bottom of the stairs with a broken neck. The entire episode will then, of course, be blamed on the member of staff, who gets fired, and the train company becomes liable for shelling out a huge sum in compensation to the grieving family of the deceased.
If the layout of the station is such that it is impossible for a disabled passenger to get to the right platform without using a lift, and that lift is knackered, then the passenger can't travel where they want to go from the station. The real question that ought therefore to be asked, given that the passenger would've had a reasonable expectation of being able to travel, is not "why didn't the staff lug the passenger up and down the stairs?" It's "why didn't the stingy train company pay for the passenger to take a taxi," either to an alternative station with working access nearer to their destination, or all the way to where they were going?
One assumes that there aren't thousands of wheelchair users transiting through Milton Keynes every day. It wouldn't have bankrupted them.
Do we even live in a serious country anymore? Or is it just a plaything for rich, ambitious and dishonest men like Johnson and Murdoch, every penny of public money at their disposal, every piece of information theirs to bury on a whim?
Personally I would also say a blanket ban is acceptable, and so disagreed with the court, but don't regard that as good reason to junk the whole process. I also agree that the risks of taking such a decisive step could be severe so, even if considered somewhat hyperbolic by some, it should be treated as significant.
But I think it is a little unreasonable to present any expression of discontent with the rulings of the court as being only for reasons of malice or incomprehension. It appears that the argument being made is that any concern is akin to those who want to abandon the court altogether.
Especially since the story was in that book Lord Ashcroft published about Carrie.
Still, always good to have another example of the Streisand Effect.
Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive
https://twitter.com/soniapurnell/status/1538155978075553792
"Germany, a long-time heavy user of Russian gas, began cutting down on imports after the latest invasion Ukraine. Its climate target to phase out coal by 2030 remains in place, as does its policy to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by 2023."
https://news.sky.com/story/bitter-but-necessary-germany-turns-to-coal-to-replace-russian-gas-12636775
I took the point of view that the blanket ban on prisoners voting had been in place in many countries for many years within the ECHR - so what had changed? I was told that the law had progressed. I pointed out that the law hadn't been amended, just the interpretation. He said that was the point.
I asked what limits were on such interpretations? He was of the view that lawyers know which way progress is. I pointed out that it is perfectly possible to pick the "right" judges - isn't it better to legislate in the legislature?
I'm on holiday in Bulgaria at the moment, up at my parents-in-law's villa in a small village in the hills overlooking the Thracian plain, so only dropping in from time to time but I'd be happy to take a look if you'd remind me?
Doesn't mean I'll have the answers mind. It's a desperately complex issue but one we have to try and solve, and I've found the debate on here interesting.
Like done by Pollock rather than Mondrian.
Never really respected the law courts (of whatever form) as much as others do on here tbh
Trouble is that when Paris sneezes Europe catches a cold.
Given that the relative was I asked the lawyer I had a chat with, about the idea of saying that it wasn't a blanket ban - just applied to prisoners who were in jail for more than 10 seconds.
He seemed to think that such a work around was an insult to the court. But couldn't explain why.
That doesn't mean it makes sense, just explains why it doesn't.
It is still true today, but less so. Le Pen is now doing well in parts of western France
Rural France likewise has its problems. The tranquility of the countryside adored by visitors is often caused by depopulation and stagnation
Still don’t get Pyrenees Orientales, tho
Wouldn't put it past him either.
We all know they're just a Russian puppet state, but its one further way of avoiding the ECHR anyway.