Just 4% of Brits plan to see QEII lying in state at Westminster.
That is over 400 people a minute. I don't think that many people are going to be able to do it.
Two lines (one each side of the coffin), exactly one person wide. Walking speed of 1m/s. 3 people to the metre So 180 people past a fixed point per minute 360 for both lines...
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
Surely the police have dragged some of the more vociferous muslim preachers away? I seem to recall there was a mosque in London somewhere.....
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
If they're overrunning while in the pulpit, of course...
Just 4% of Brits plan to see QEII lying in state at Westminster.
That is over two million people!
I tried a back of an envelope calculation of how many people could file past in the time available and it came out at about 1.7m. That was at 5 per second for 96 hours.
They could restrict it to sprinters only
That would make things worse - for the same reason that when there is an increase in the volume of traffic on the motorway, the speed at which everyone can go is slower.
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
Looks like new King Charles has got a rather bigger poll bounce than new PM Liz then, not that it matters so much for him as he has no election to fight
Personally, my sense of grieve is proportionate to the sense of loss I feel. I'm not sure why one should grieve less for someone very old, for whom death is expected but who's been a constant presence in your life - I will miss her reassuring presence, her smile, the Christmas speeches and national messages, her sense of duty, her shrewdness, diplomacy and good humour. And the stability and continuity she gave.
The fact I know that's now gone for good means I feel the sense of loss more keenly, and so I grieve. In my head I'd expected her to life about the same lifespan as the Queen Mother, maybe to 100 to 101, and certainly to make it to 2024 and become the longest reigning monarch, because although I knew she was frail and had mobility problems I had no idea it was any more serious than that nor that death was imminent. So it came as a shock.
Contrast to Diana. The reaction to her death was near hysterical. That was a tragedy, and indeed very sad, particularly for her two boys, but the country seemed to go berserk. I'm afraid I didn't grieve because I didn't feel the same sense of connection to her, and I'm a pretty staunch monarchist, and I still don't really understand what happened that week.
Depends on the individual, I guess.
The Diana thing still excites sociologists, 25 years on. ISTM there are a couple of really distinct features about it: Diana brought together several top bill items; royalty, scandal, heartbreak, emoting touchy feely charisma, beauty, Cinderella and celebrity.
She also spoke (and I noticed this a lot) for the transition generation of women around her age (they are now 55-65) who lived through the last age of patriarchy. She was their celebrity representative, and they turned out in their millions. Their daughters have inherited a different world.
Thanks. That's as good an explanation as any I've read.
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
It might not have been in Johnson's manifesto, but I am sure it was in Liz Truss's. And she seems to regard herself as leading a totally different party. Rather as Johnson himself did when he took over from Theresa May.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2022/09/11/2003785128 The military appears to be scaling up its reserves due to concern over a possible Chinese invasion in 2027, including a 25 percent increase in the Ministry of National Defense’s budget to NT$133.7 billion (US$4.33 billion) for fiscal 2023, National Policy Foundation associate research fellow Chieh Chung (揭仲) said on Friday.
Another budget item, purchases of ammunition, is to rise to NT$8 billion, just shy of a four-fold increase from fiscal 2021, showing that the military is stepping up reserves to prepare for a potential protracted campaign on Taiwan proper without foreign aid, Chieh said.
The NT$1.92 billion to purchase ammunition, including missiles for shoulder-launched anti-armor weapons, indicates that the ministry is preparing to fight on Taiwan proper, he said...
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
Absolutely the risk is worth taking. Life is full of risk, hopefully we get lucky, worst case we don't and we're no worse off than we are.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are no worse off than they were in the past, they're no better off but no worse off either. Most of the Soviet Union is far better off than it was.
If the worst that happens is that Putin is replaced by a new Putin then that's a shame but can live with that. If the best that happens is that Russia becomes free, or dissolves into multiple states some of which can be free, then fantastic.
Under the shadow of momentous events, the mood shifts. Contrary to earlier briefing, Truss has not triggered Article16 and a fudge on the 15 Sept deadline is coming. Good. Time to negotiate: and to kick the NI Protocol Bill into the v long grass.
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
Under the shadow of momentous events, the mood shifts. Contrary to earlier briefing, Truss has not triggered Article16 and a fudge on the 15 Sept deadline is coming. Good. Time to negotiate: and to kick the NI Protocol Bill into the v long grass.
Pedo boy gets to wear uniform, Harry not. This is KC humiliating his own son in favour of his trafficky brother because that's what wounded self importance looks like.
Enough. Arsenic in his Epsom salts, and extra helpings for the Queen fucking Consort. What a monumental fucking shit.
The king won't last long. Harry isn't stupid and he has a backbone. He has matured amazingly since his Nazi uniform idiocy, the Las Vegas business, and Afghanistan. His spoilt toe-rag of a father will never mature.
What if...just imagine...Harry were to have written a few alternative versions of one of the chapters in his book...and he chooses the one that really gives his father the almighty kick in the b*llocks he deserves and he leaks a copy later this week? Bye-bye kingy. Bye-bye monarchy. Go for it, Harry.
All the build-up is in one direction. All the other side have got is to print articles saying trillions of admirers are flocking the streets, blah blah. They've got absolutely nothing else - oh, some stuff about the late queen. WTF has she got to do with anything?
Sorry to disappoint but while Diana's son and heirs are in line the monarchy is secure.
As far as KCIII is concerned he's going to be an unpopular monarch but the people will tolerate him while they wait for William and Catherine - the true heirs - to ascend.
Fat baldy and social climber. Huzzah. Give it to me unlubed your maj, hard as you like
Hmmmm - "Social climber"?
Isn't one of the Republican points that he has been helicoptered to the top of the social mountain, with the flight paid by the tax payer?
That's her not him.
Ah. But pretty much the same applies there as well.
If yesterdays multiple vehicle pile up was anything to go by, this should be illuminating fun:
Evidence will continue today in Mermaids v LGB Alliance & the Charity Commission. Resuming at 10 am. Witnesses expected today: John Nicolson, MP; Belinda Bell, chair of trustees of Mermaids. Catch up on live tweet threads here:
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
It's probably some sort of law against defective scholarship. The New Testament is the greatest celebration of physical gay love in the whole of literature.
Under the shadow of momentous events, the mood shifts. Contrary to earlier briefing, Truss has not triggered Article16 and a fudge on the 15 Sept deadline is coming. Good. Time to negotiate: and to kick the NI Protocol Bill into the v long grass.
Has Truss done anything? I know that her start is being overshadowed by the Queen's passing, but Ms Truss appears to be totally invisible at present which, I suspect, is the cause of OGH's header above.
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interest, as there will be this week with the lying in state up to Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
Whoever is organising this funeral are making a real pigs trotter of it. They've just cancelled three more premier league games at the week end for no obvious reason. Not being able to cope with a funeral and a football match on different days- in one case in a different part of the couintry- doesn't doesn't bode well for our new status as a theme park.
What's more If any of the postponed teams look like they're heading for the quadruple there literally aren't going to be enough days available to play all the matches
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
I entirely agree with your last paragraph. Perhaps someone could point me to the people who were saying that in 1973, the North Vietnamese shouldn't humiliate the US too much, because this would cause the Cold War to go hot?
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interestsm as there will be this week with the lying in state on Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
I've not watched much of the coverage, only because I was camping all weekend and barely have time to watch TV during the week, not because of any great aversion to it. I think I might rewatch the Crown, though, if my wife can be persuaded.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interests, as there will be this week with the lying in state on Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
Having to watch Eastenders on BBC2 is such a trial.
Those will be rich working households as rich pensioner households won’t benefit from the NI cut (which they should be paying in the first place, but you know, politics, pensioners & voters….)
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
Russia is already a failed state under Putin. The second it invaded a neighbour, it was a failed state.
Yes the west is succeeding in beating back Russia, and that victory needs to be total and comprehensive back to Russia's own borders. They can keep Moscow, but not Crimea or any other Ukrainian territory.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
Schipol is very linear. The time to get to your gate can be extreme, even at a half run! The important thing is to find out your gate early and go there.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interests, as there will be this week with the lying in state on Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
Having to watch Eastenders on BBC2 is such a trial.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
Exactly so, at least in terms of Russia staying together. I was going to post yesterday exactly the same - that the nonsense about "embracing the chaos" from figures like Applebaum indeed reminds me exactly of the neocon nonsense before the Iraq war. Some ideologues never learn.
Whether or not Russia stays together really isn't in the gift of the west. The future is inherently unknowable and chaotic.
This is what she actually wrote, btw. ...To prepare for Putin’s exit does not mean that Americans, Europeans, or any outsiders intervene directly in the politics of Moscow. We have no tools that can affect the course of events in the Kremlin, and any effort to meddle would certainly backfire. But that doesn’t mean we should help him stay in power either. As Western heads of state, foreign ministers, and generals think about how to end this war, they should not try to preserve Putin’s view of himself or of the world, his backward-looking definition of Russian greatness. They should not be planning to negotiate on his terms at all, because they might be dealing with someone else altogether....
Assuming the Putin regimes collapse is real rather than wishful thinking, we should learn from the collapse of the USSR. Being open minded and reaching out the olive branch to any new government (obviously withdrawal from Ukraine is a precondition) is likely to be in our long term interest. We don't want Russia to just shift back to being another failed state.
Russians invest a lot of nationalism in their military successes, seeing them roundly defeated will be a psychological blow as profound as it was in Weimar Germany.
Weimar Germany never fought a war. Even when they were invaded in 1923 they only put up passive resistance. Do you mean in Imperial Germany and the hangover therefrom?
Weimaraner* was the hangover from the Imperial defeat.
* edit: looks like I am being dogged by autocorrect...
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
It's probably some sort of law against defective scholarship. The New Testament is the greatest celebration of physical gay love in the whole of literature.
There's a fairly steady hauling off of the nutters around various tube stations in London. The chap I mentioned the other day was one of the very polite, inoffensive ones.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with watching and criticising or wishing it to be better either though......
Of interest was these blasts filmed yesterday in Taganrog, Russia. It is where the Russians base their AWACS....
Taganrog (Rostov Oblast) is where the Beriev plant that makes the A-50 is located. The operational aircraft are based at Ivanovo North (Ivanovo Oblast). That's a long way away, even by Russian standards.
There are satellite images of the AWACS on the runway at Taganrog before the attack....
"People who pay highest energy bills stand to benefit most when energy bills are subsidised" shock.
As Truss plans are an extension of the opposition plans from 6 months to 2 years the same applies to all the plans put forward and is inevitable when blanket relief is applied
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
Surely the police have dragged some of the more vociferous muslim preachers away? I seem to recall there was a mosque in London somewhere.....
They tend to wait for that class of gentry. And then arrest them for something that will embarrass them in front of their flock.
Whoever is organising this funeral are making a real pigs trotter of it. They've just cancelled three more premier league games at the week end for no obvious reason. Not being able to cope with a funeral and a football match on different days- in one case in a different part of the couintry- doesn't doesn't bode well for our new status as a theme park.
What's more If any of the postponed teams look like they're heading for the quadruple there literally aren't going to be enough days available to play all the matches
Utter nonsense
The big teams have at least two elevens that they can put out. Much of the congestion will be league cup and sadly FA cup (now much devalued). If sides need to play three games in a week because they are successful, then so be it.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
Absolutely the risk is worth taking. Life is full of risk, hopefully we get lucky, worst case we don't and we're no worse off than we are.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are no worse off than they were in the past, they're no better off but no worse off either. Most of the Soviet Union is far better off than it was.
If the worst that happens is that Putin is replaced by a new Putin then that's a shame but can live with that. If the best that happens is that Russia becomes free, or dissolves into multiple states some of which can be free, then fantastic.
Either way, Putin has to go.
Well, this is the opposite to my experience of life, risk taking has to be managed and calculated, and informed.
I recommend Fiona Hills 2015 book on Putin. She is hardly a Putin appeaser.
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
It's probably some sort of law against defective scholarship. The New Testament is the greatest celebration of physical gay love in the whole of literature.
There's a fairly steady hauling off of the nutters around various tube stations in London. The chap I mentioned the other day was one of the very polite, inoffensive ones.
I would have thought the danger of an Islamist bomb was very high one way and another. 9/11 +21 years and HM's response to it was famous. Probly best to concentrate on that
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interest, as there will be this week with the lying in state up to Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
I’ve become a lot more selective in my viewing. The service in St Giles yesterday was beautiful for example, but I was frustrated in my attempt to watch the cortège pass my home town as that was when they lost helicopter coverage. And if I hear Robert Lacey trot out his Queen/ipad/Princess Royal anecdote one more time….
Of interest was these blasts filmed yesterday in Taganrog, Russia. It is where the Russians base their AWACS....
Taganrog (Rostov Oblast) is where the Beriev plant that makes the A-50 is located. The operational aircraft are based at Ivanovo North (Ivanovo Oblast). That's a long way away, even by Russian standards.
There are satellite images of the AWACS on the runway at Taganrog before the attack....
Fairly unsurprising that there would be an aircraft on the runway at the factory.
There was an interesting article I saw the other day about the heavy drone the Ukrainians were using as a slow and stealthy cruise missile.
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
That response to the speech must exclude those who didn't see it? I've not seen any of it and I find it hard to believe that makes up only the remaining 3%
(I saw quite a few other bits relating to the Queen's death, not sure what day the speech was, bit there was a day I was traveling a lot)
Just think what could have happened if Truss had got the tone right. All the acres of TV time they need to fill and could have filled replaying her perfect anecdote. The BOUNCE would have been hers.....
What a chance and she blew it.
She hasn't really had the time to build up a decent portfolio of anecdotes. There's only the one about how her Maj made her pm and then, with that quiet sense of humour for which she was so well known, died.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
Absolutely the risk is worth taking. Life is full of risk, hopefully we get lucky, worst case we don't and we're no worse off than we are.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are no worse off than they were in the past, they're no better off but no worse off either. Most of the Soviet Union is far better off than it was.
If the worst that happens is that Putin is replaced by a new Putin then that's a shame but can live with that. If the best that happens is that Russia becomes free, or dissolves into multiple states some of which can be free, then fantastic.
Either way, Putin has to go.
Well, this is the opposite to my experience of life, risk taking has to be managed and calculated, and informed.
I recommend Fiona Hills 2015 book on Putin. She is hardly a Putin appeaser.
Risk can't be entirely managed. That's the same nonsense as those who wanted to eliminate risk by locking us all down to control Covid, even post-vaccines.
We are informed in beating back Putin. Putin should have been beaten back in 2014, but better late than never happening now.
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interest, as there will be this week with the lying in state up to Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
I have dipped in and out for the bits of historical interest. But for me the most memorable bit of the whole thing, outside of the initial news, was the local Proclamations of Accession all around the country. I went to the Proclamations in Newark on Sunday and was very taken by the fact that this isn't something restricted to big pageantry events in London but is also something played out in every town and city across the country.
When the Proclamation of Accession was made in Newark, the Town Clerk stood upon an old wooden stool for the purpose. I didn't initially realise the significance of this but it turns out this same stool has been used to make the Proclamation for every new monarch since George IV in 1820.
On each occasion a brass plaque is affixed to the stool commemorating the event. Seven further monarchs since 1820 in addition George IV with a 9th now waiting to be added.
I see Senate Republicans are going to introduce a bill to ban abortions nationally. Because what polling has shown is that moderate US voters loves it when the Republicans talk about banning abortion.
Two observations - first, if it is indeed down to 16 weeks this looks like a cynically focus group tested piece of legislation. Second, I was assured on here repeatedly that it was impossible to pass national legislation banning abortion. So someone should tell the GOP they are wasting their time.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
I don't think he had any complaints about Arrivals.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Thinking about going up to London later this week to take a look and take some photos. Any tips on where to go other than in addition to Green Park / the Palace?
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
Absolutely the risk is worth taking. Life is full of risk, hopefully we get lucky, worst case we don't and we're no worse off than we are.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are no worse off than they were in the past, they're no better off but no worse off either. Most of the Soviet Union is far better off than it was.
If the worst that happens is that Putin is replaced by a new Putin then that's a shame but can live with that. If the best that happens is that Russia becomes free, or dissolves into multiple states some of which can be free, then fantastic.
Either way, Putin has to go.
Well, this is the opposite to my experience of life, risk taking has to be managed and calculated, and informed.
I recommend Fiona Hills 2015 book on Putin. She is hardly a Putin appeaser.
Risk can't be entirely managed. That's the same nonsense as those who wanted to eliminate risk by locking us all down to control Covid, even post-vaccines.
We are informed in beating back Putin. Putin should have been beaten back in 2014, but better late than never happening now.
I always enjoyed conservations with traders who think you can buy and sell risk, like any other commodity.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
Yep. Like a few on here, I already had my spot planned out so the kids could see a bit of history. It would be impossible for me to get to London with the family at the moment so it is a big disappointment.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interests, as there will be this week with the lying in state on Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
Having to watch Eastenders on BBC2 is such a trial.
More of a trial than watching it on BBC1?
It's like listening to.Paxman. Hit the off switch asap..
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
The quantity of flowers actually make me a little sad, for the missed opportunity. All that money spent, that could perhaps have been redirected to one or more of the charities the Queen supported. People should of course be free to mark her passing in any way they wish, but that's how I feel.
I see Senate Republicans are going to introduce a bill to ban abortions nationally. Because what polling has shown is that moderate US voters loves it when the Republicans talk about banning abortion.
Two observations - first, if it is indeed down to 16 weeks this looks like a cynically focus group tested piece of legislation. Second, I was assured on here repeatedly that it was impossible to pass national legislation banning abortion. So someone should tell the GOP they are wasting their time.
At the moment it is impossible as the GOP have a majority in neither the House nor the Senate. Unless they win control of both the House and the Senate and win the Presidency in 2024 it will still be impossible for the GOP to pass a national abortion ban
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
They most definitely are being given money. Not only that, but they are being given more money the more energy they use. Any time the government steps in to subsidise the cost of something they are giving money to somebody. Sure, doing something more targeted would have been complicated, but when the alternative is loading £150bn of debt onto our kids in order to give money to people who don't need it I think a bit of complication might be an okay price to pay. Since utilities are metered I don't think it would have been that hard to come up with a way of subsidising eg the first x units of energy so that everyone could afford a minimum amount to keep warm and clean over the winter. It sounds like Truss was presented with a plan by the energy firms and she just signed up to it without asking any questions. A costly error, in my opinion.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
Yes you have. You said 'If it were a preacher being dragged away they would be cheering it on'.
I didn't say the police don't do stupid things, but where are the progressives cheering this on?
And if the Daily Mail is your source of unbiased information know wonder you have such a biased view of the world.
The police should leave him alone unless he is inciting violence or causing an obstruction and even in the latter should be encouraged to carry on in a less obstructive way and definitely not be arrested.
Policemen being stupid was not the point you were making.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
They were of course lawyers so it was on the cards anyway.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interest, as there will be this week with the lying in state up to Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
I have dipped in and out for the bits of historical interest. But for me the most memorable bit of the whole thing, outside of the initial news, was the local Proclamations of Accession all around the country. I went to the Proclamations in Newark on Sunday and was very taken by the fact that this isn't something restricted to big pageantry events in London but is also something played out in every town and city across the country.
When the Proclamation of Accession was made in Newark, the Town Clerk stood upon an old wooden stool for the purpose. I didn't initially realise the significance of this but it turns out this same stool has been used to make the Proclamation for every new monarch since George IV in 1820.
On each occasion a brass plaque is affixed to the stool commemorating the event. Seven further monarchs since 1820 in addition George IV with a 9th now waiting to be added.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
Re the header, the 'furore' is the usual twitter types trying to kick up a storm over a few saddos who thought they would spend part of their day shouting their opinions - which nobody really cares about - at the funeral of the monarch.
I don't believe they should be charged but I don't believe preachers who bang on the high street about Christ and the evils of sodomy should be prosecuted either.
The only difference in this case it's the 'progressives' cause that is being attacked and therefore it's a so called threat to free speech. If it was a preacher being dragged away, they would be cheering it on.
Er, you just made that last para up. I don't know anyone who cheers on the police for dragging off some religious nutter preaching on the street.
It's probably some sort of law against defective scholarship. The New Testament is the greatest celebration of physical gay love in the whole of literature.
If you want to allow Republicans to rant at will against the monarch and repeal the Public Order Act you also have to allow evangelical Christians and Muslims to preach against homosexuality and trans and anti abortion protestors to protest against abortion at will too.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
Absolutely the risk is worth taking. Life is full of risk, hopefully we get lucky, worst case we don't and we're no worse off than we are.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are no worse off than they were in the past, they're no better off but no worse off either. Most of the Soviet Union is far better off than it was.
If the worst that happens is that Putin is replaced by a new Putin then that's a shame but can live with that. If the best that happens is that Russia becomes free, or dissolves into multiple states some of which can be free, then fantastic.
Either way, Putin has to go.
Well, this is the opposite to my experience of life, risk taking has to be managed and calculated, and informed.
I recommend Fiona Hills 2015 book on Putin. She is hardly a Putin appeaser.
Risk can't be entirely managed. That's the same nonsense as those who wanted to eliminate risk by locking us all down to control Covid, even post-vaccines.
We are informed in beating back Putin. Putin should have been beaten back in 2014, but better late than never happening now.
I always enjoyed conservations with traders who think you can buy and sell risk, like any other commodity.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
They were of course lawyers so it was on the cards anyway.
Well, Saul Goodman is who I try to model myself on in my professional career.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
Don't listen to the doomsters. I've travelled a dozen or more times since the pandemic and never had a problem either going out or coming back. Too many good experiences for this to be a coincidence.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Whoever is organising this funeral are making a real pigs trotter of it. They've just cancelled three more premier league games at the week end for no obvious reason. Not being able to cope with a funeral and a football match on different days- in one case in a different part of the couintry- doesn't doesn't bode well for our new status as a theme park.
What's more If any of the postponed teams look like they're heading for the quadruple there literally aren't going to be enough days available to play all the matches
Utter nonsense
I think Roger was using literally in the sense I overheard last week in the office when a colleague told someone she 'literally jumped out of her skin'. Which these days is a quite charmingly old-fashioned misuse of literally. More fashionable nowadays is using the word 'literally' where noone sane could possibly doubt that you mean it literally - for example 'it's literally a nice light grey colour'. I have also heard the word literally used in the sense that the previous generation would use the word 'like', or the one before it would use the word 'er' - that is, as a filler, with no meaning whatsoever. And I've also heard it used by the kids to mean 'FFS!' - as in "Mum! Literally!"
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Thinking about going up to London later this week to take a look and take some photos. Any tips on where to go other than in addition to Green Park / the Palace?
The queue at the Palace was massive on Sunday - 2 hours.... Relatively few were going to the floral tribute area, and there is a lot more space there.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Quite. And LGW is shite. Seamless through Luton, East Mids, Birmingham and Heathrow.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Thinking about going up to London later this week to take a look and take some photos. Any tips on where to go other than in addition to Green Park / the Palace?
The queue at the Palace was massive on Sunday - 2 hours.... Relatively few were going to the floral tribute area, and there is a lot more space there.
Where is the floral tribute area? Is that the same as the Green Park displays?
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
It's about 400 miles. To have one person for every 100 yards of track you would need about 7,000 people.
Can we really not find 30,000 people to provide an average of one person every 25 yards to keep an eye on things, provide advice, call in for support if required? It's not a small thing, but a monarch is only going to die on average once every three decades or so.
The other thing that comes to mind is that, QEII played a blinder dying in Scotland. I imagine things would feel very different here if everything was happening in London.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
Don't listen to the doomsters. I've travelled a dozen or more times since the pandemic and never had a problem either going out or coming back. Too many good experiences for this to be a coincidence.
Where are you flying from and using which airline.
for instance Jet2 is perfectly fine at Manchester but other airlines using different suppliers are a complete mare because the Swissair (to name one of them) binned all their staff and have been unable to replace them...
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Moscow confirms Russian teachers in Ukr's Kharkiv Region have been arrested by advancing Ukr forces. The teachers had been reportedly sent by Moscow to teach a Rus curriculum in schools in occupied Ukr territory. When Rus forces retreated, it seems the teachers were left behind. https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/status/1569586731573301252
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Different levels of risk assessment back then - if someone went under the train, it would be their own fault. Now, it would a public enquiry. And when it came out that the risk was recognised in planning and ignored, the person ignoring it would be legally liable.
By car would have been sensible. And that is what I would have done. A rather meandering route, probably, to make sure that there were many miles of pavement which people could stand on, if they chose. Complete with a phone app detailing the route, the location of the hearse, and the estimated time to a given location...
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Agreed. I can't help but think that a plan like this was abandoned in the last 20 years, due to security fears.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
Don't listen to the doomsters. I've travelled a dozen or more times since the pandemic and never had a problem either going out or coming back. Too many good experiences for this to be a coincidence.
Stories about logjam to cross the channel, one weekend aside (and that was the start of the summer holidays), have been notable by their complete and utter absence.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
Absolutely the risk is worth taking. Life is full of risk, hopefully we get lucky, worst case we don't and we're no worse off than we are.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are no worse off than they were in the past, they're no better off but no worse off either. Most of the Soviet Union is far better off than it was.
If the worst that happens is that Putin is replaced by a new Putin then that's a shame but can live with that. If the best that happens is that Russia becomes free, or dissolves into multiple states some of which can be free, then fantastic.
Either way, Putin has to go.
Well, this is the opposite to my experience of life, risk taking has to be managed and calculated, and informed.
I recommend Fiona Hills 2015 book on Putin. She is hardly a Putin appeaser.
Risk can't be entirely managed. That's the same nonsense as those who wanted to eliminate risk by locking us all down to control Covid, even post-vaccines.
We are informed in beating back Putin. Putin should have been beaten back in 2014, but better late than never happening now.
I always enjoyed conservations with traders who think you can buy and sell risk, like any other commodity.
Insurance, reinsurance, CDS...
What about some nice Greek CDS, one careful owner, low mileage?
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Comments
Walking speed of 1m/s.
3 people to the metre
So 180 people past a fixed point per minute
360 for both lines...
Hmmmm
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow!
So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/trackers/should-britain-start-extracting-shale-gas
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2022/09/11/2003785128
The military appears to be scaling up its reserves due to concern over a possible Chinese invasion in 2027, including a 25 percent increase in the Ministry of National Defense’s budget to NT$133.7 billion (US$4.33 billion) for fiscal 2023, National Policy Foundation associate research fellow Chieh Chung (揭仲) said on Friday.
Another budget item, purchases of ammunition, is to rise to NT$8 billion, just shy of a four-fold increase from fiscal 2021, showing that the military is stepping up reserves to prepare for a potential protracted campaign on Taiwan proper without foreign aid, Chieh said.
The NT$1.92 billion to purchase ammunition, including missiles for shoulder-launched anti-armor weapons, indicates that the ministry is preparing to fight on Taiwan proper, he said...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9521123/amp/Moment-police-arrest-elderly-preacher-71-street-quoting-homophobic-statements-Bible.html
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are no worse off than they were in the past, they're no better off but no worse off either. Most of the Soviet Union is far better off than it was.
If the worst that happens is that Putin is replaced by a new Putin then that's a shame but can live with that. If the best that happens is that Russia becomes free, or dissolves into multiple states some of which can be free, then fantastic.
Either way, Putin has to go.
https://twitter.com/LordRickettsP/status/1569594797945507840
If the EU compromises then the NI Protocol Bill has done its job and is no longer required.
If they don't, then it is.
Its only because the NI Protocol Bill is there, that the EU may be willing to compromise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62882964
Unemployment though falls to just 3.6%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62877700
Evidence will continue today in Mermaids v LGB Alliance & the Charity Commission. Resuming at 10 am. Witnesses expected today: John Nicolson, MP; Belinda Bell, chair of trustees of Mermaids.
Catch up on live tweet threads here:
https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569580387650748419
But I guess that’s bound to happen when “no debate” arguments are exposed in open court.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interest, as there will be this week with the lying in state up to Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
Yes the west is succeeding in beating back Russia, and that victory needs to be total and comprehensive back to Russia's own borders. They can keep Moscow, but not Crimea or any other Ukrainian territory.
* edit: looks like I am being dogged by autocorrect...
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
I recommend Fiona Hills 2015 book on Putin. She is hardly a Putin appeaser.
There was an interesting article I saw the other day about the heavy drone the Ukrainians were using as a slow and stealthy cruise missile.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
We are informed in beating back Putin. Putin should have been beaten back in 2014, but better late than never happening now.
rugbyfuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
When the Proclamation of Accession was made in Newark, the Town Clerk stood upon an old wooden stool for the purpose. I didn't initially realise the significance of this but it turns out this same stool has been used to make the Proclamation for every new monarch since George IV in 1820.
On each occasion a brass plaque is affixed to the stool commemorating the event. Seven further monarchs since 1820 in addition George IV with a 9th now waiting to be added.
An amazing piece of local history.
https://twitter.com/AliceOllstein/status/1569494296998383618
Two observations - first, if it is indeed down to 16 weeks this looks like a cynically focus group tested piece of legislation. Second, I was assured on here repeatedly that it was impossible to pass national legislation banning abortion. So someone should tell the GOP they are wasting their time.
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before.
2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track.
3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc
4) Accidents are then certain.
https://twitter.com/AKamyshin/status/1569425516104400901
Sure, doing something more targeted would have been complicated, but when the alternative is loading £150bn of debt onto our kids in order to give money to people who don't need it I think a bit of complication might be an okay price to pay. Since utilities are metered I don't think it would have been that hard to come up with a way of subsidising eg the first x units of energy so that everyone could afford a minimum amount to keep warm and clean over the winter. It sounds like Truss was presented with a plan by the energy firms and she just signed up to it without asking any questions. A costly error, in my opinion.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
I didn't say the police don't do stupid things, but where are the progressives cheering this on?
And if the Daily Mail is your source of unbiased information know wonder you have such a biased view of the world.
The police should leave him alone unless he is inciting violence or causing an obstruction and even in the latter should be encouraged to carry on in a less obstructive way and definitely not be arrested.
Policemen being stupid was not the point you were making.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
I thought the ending perfect.
Freedom of speech applies to all minority views
There was no redemption, just misery.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Which these days is a quite charmingly old-fashioned misuse of literally. More fashionable nowadays is using the word 'literally' where noone sane could possibly doubt that you mean it literally - for example 'it's literally a nice light grey colour'.
I have also heard the word literally used in the sense that the previous generation would use the word 'like', or the one before it would use the word 'er' - that is, as a filler, with no meaning whatsoever.
And I've also heard it used by the kids to mean 'FFS!' - as in "Mum! Literally!"
Can we really not find 30,000 people to provide an average of one person every 25 yards to keep an eye on things, provide advice, call in for support if required? It's not a small thing, but a monarch is only going to die on average once every three decades or so.
The other thing that comes to mind is that, QEII played a blinder dying in Scotland. I imagine things would feel very different here if everything was happening in London.
for instance Jet2 is perfectly fine at Manchester but other airlines using different suppliers are a complete mare because the Swissair (to name one of them) binned all their staff and have been unable to replace them...
Of course this is Brexit related as well no doubt
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/schiphol-airport-asks-airlines-cancel-flights-due-labour-shortages-2022-09-12/
https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/status/1569586731573301252
By car would have been sensible. And that is what I would have done. A rather meandering route, probably, to make sure that there were many miles of pavement which people could stand on, if they chose. Complete with a phone app detailing the route, the location of the hearse, and the estimated time to a given location...