Yeah, his is quite an achievement. I've been following him for years.
But... (and I whisper this quietly): when you spend over five years doing the walk full-time, then it doesn't become quite a walk: it becomes a lifestyle. Which is fine, but it's a very different sort of walk. Possibly more enjoyable than what I did.
I'll have to get 'Finding Hildasay'; I think I've got every other book written by coastal walkers, from 'I met Granny Vera' to 'Two feet, Four Paws'. It's a rather odd collection, both of books and their very different authors.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Hang on, let's get one thing straight. A pacifist acquaintance of mine says we cannot call Russia 'fascist', as 'fascist' is a Second World War construct that has no relevance to the modern world. On the other hand, it's perfectly fine for him to insinuate that Ukrainians are all neo-Nazis...
I guess I'll just have to add 'neo' on to the front of fascist.
What about neon-fascist? Like fascist but with a pop culture aesthetic?
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
Clegg was actually a proper Liberal, ie a dry classical economic liberal who wants to cut spending and tax and a social liberal who backed homosexual marriage and a relaxed approach to drugs and was open to immigration and pro EU, not a Social Democrat or ex SDP who would otherwise basically be on the right of the Labour Party.
Just unfortunately for the LDs in 2015 they discovered that only 8% of the UK electorate are proper Liberals
Whilst Clegg was a remainer, he did describe himself as "eurosceptic".
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Hang on, let's get one thing straight. A pacifist acquaintance of mine says we cannot call Russia 'fascist', as 'fascist' is a Second World War construct that has no relevance to the modern world. On the other hand, it's perfectly fine for him to insinuate that Ukrainians are all neo-Nazis...
I guess I'll just have to add 'neo' on to the front of fascist.
What about neon-fascist? Like fascist but with a pop culture aesthetic?
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Is Canada a US protectorate? Is Germany? Is Poland? Is Lithuania? Is Estonia? Is Latvia?
Why is Ukraine special?
I would describe those other countries (and the UK) as falling within the US sphere of influence, and expected broadly to tow a line, but left to run themselves internally for the most part. Ukraine is of greater strategical significance, and as we heard in the Nuland tapes, America has adopted a far more hands-on approach, and that was before the war. Apart from anything else, Ukraine now has billions of dollars of war debt owing to the US for military equipment, which it will never be able to repay.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
The UK is one of the only states in the world that *does* treat its borders as negotiable depending on the wishes of the population.
What is the process for, say, Chechnya to secede from the Russian federation?
The process is quite well defined, for attempting to leave Russia.
1) All the separatists are killed 2) Anyone supporting them is killed 3) Burj the place to the ground 4) the nastiest non-separatist you can find is put in charge and given Carte Blanche to rape, rob and murder 5) Any questions? See 1-4
Having watched the excellent 3 part BBC documentary on Putin the obvious missed chance seems to have been with the Minsk agreement. The capture of Crimea was bad enough but the Ukrainians effectively agreed to allow a private militia to control the separatist areas in the east as autonomous entities. Why? Because they feared that said terrorists might march on Kyiv. How could a rabble of malcontents from the Donbass defeat the Ukrainian army? Only with the full throttled support of the Russian state of course. Yet the west's response to this outrage was not a doubling down on sanctions or even a commitment by all Nato members to spend 2% GDP on defence. As President Hollande put it 'if you don't punch back at first, you end up having to punch back harder later.'
At that time the Ukranian forces lacked the capacity to resist effectively, so had to accept the Crimea and Donbas occupations. Since 2014 the Ukranian forces have been transformed in terms of organisation and fighting ability, as we have seen over the last year. This despite largely equipped with obsolete Soviet era arms until the 2022 invasion started.
As we grind towards the first anniversary of this phase of the war, it does look like Russia has the numbers, and in Bakhmut the short supply lines for a long battle of attrition. Losses there must be huge on both sides, but horrendous for the Russians with their frontal assaults by human waves.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Hang on, let's get one thing straight. A pacifist acquaintance of mine says we cannot call Russia 'fascist', as 'fascist' is a Second World War construct that has no relevance to the modern world. On the other hand, it's perfectly fine for him to insinuate that Ukrainians are all neo-Nazis...
I guess I'll just have to add 'neo' on to the front of fascist.
What about neon-fascist? Like fascist but with a pop culture aesthetic?
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Of course there is. The West has sponsored and got along with several facist states.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Hang on, let's get one thing straight. A pacifist acquaintance of mine says we cannot call Russia 'fascist', as 'fascist' is a Second World War construct that has no relevance to the modern world. On the other hand, it's perfectly fine for him to insinuate that Ukrainians are all neo-Nazis...
I guess I'll just have to add 'neo' on to the front of fascist.
What about neon-fascist? Like fascist but with a pop culture aesthetic?
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Hang on, let's get one thing straight. A pacifist acquaintance of mine says we cannot call Russia 'fascist', as 'fascist' is a Second World War construct that has no relevance to the modern world. On the other hand, it's perfectly fine for him to insinuate that Ukrainians are all neo-Nazis...
I guess I'll just have to add 'neo' on to the front of fascist.
What about neon-fascist? Like fascist but with a pop culture aesthetic?
Yeah, his is quite an achievement. I've been following him for years.
But... (and I whisper this quietly): when you spend over five years doing the walk full-time, then it doesn't become quite a walk: it becomes a lifestyle. Which is fine, but it's a very different sort of walk. Possibly more enjoyable than what I did.
I'll have to get 'Finding Hildasay'; I think I've got every other book written by coastal walkers, from 'I met Granny Vera' to 'Two feet, Four Paws'. It's a rather odd collection, both of books and their very different authors.
Salt Path?
A great book, although I never did find out why he’s called Moth… (Nickname, real name, adopted name?)
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Of course there is. The West has sponsored and got along with several facist states.
Indeed so, though far fewer than in the past. One of the notable changes over the last 50 years is how democracy* has spread over the world, with nearly all of Latin America and most of Africa and Asia democratic too.
When we did support fascist states generally that was in support of cold War objectives, which have become rather obsolete now.
*imperfect democracies in large part, but major political progress from the dictatorships of the past.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Of course there is. The West has sponsored and got along with several facist states.
Are you still saying you'd give Hitler a like if he did a good post?
To judge whether an upturn in Conservative polling ahead of the next election is likely, therefore, it is essential not to simply assume this will happen because ‘polls have always narrowed in the past’, but evaluate whether the party is likely to preside over significant improvements in ‘the fundamentals’ in the months ahead. Will the economic situation improve for most voters? Will Brexit continue to be seen as a failure? Will the government’s handling of the NHS, industrial unrest and immigration be viewed favourably by the electorate?
I know what you are on about, nobody else does. And you are Acton rather strangely giving it the diaresis in this context. Though I am sure you will have a wuthering response to that.
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
I expect some Tory losses to Labour in the North and Midlands but a few Tory gains from the LDs in the South too.
Overall a shrug shoulders result for Sunak and certainly nowhere near as bad as the 1,330 Tory Council seats lost in May 2019
In May 2019, Labour also polled a notional 28% nationally in the round of local elections. I think "some" is doing a lot of work in your penultimate paragraph. It's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of losses to Labour given the likely disparity in polling. As to the Conservative-LD/Independent contests in the south, I expect little change.
Reminds me of a piece I saw in a Hoxton gallery - entitled “A constant state of revolution”
Tom Breaker: Look, Bill, if this is about reliving the 60's, you can forget about it, buddy. The movement is dead.
William Strannix: Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution.
I know what you are on about, nobody else does. And you are Acton rather strangely giving it the diaresis in this context. Though I am sure you will have a wuthering response to that.
If you're getting confused between the Brontë sisters and the Dukes of Brontë, it's time to make an End. Not necessarily a Bell End, of course.
Yeah, his is quite an achievement. I've been following him for years.
But... (and I whisper this quietly): when you spend over five years doing the walk full-time, then it doesn't become quite a walk: it becomes a lifestyle. Which is fine, but it's a very different sort of walk. Possibly more enjoyable than what I did.
I'll have to get 'Finding Hildasay'; I think I've got every other book written by coastal walkers, from 'I met Granny Vera' to 'Two feet, Four Paws'. It's a rather odd collection, both of books and their very different authors.
Salt Path?
A great book, although I never did find out why he’s called Moth… (Nickname, real name, adopted name?)
They've made a film of "The Unlikely Pilgrimage Of Harold Fry", which is out in a few months. I really enjoyed the book.
Although for a walking film, you can't beat Joss Ackland's "First and Last", which sadly I don't think you can buy or get online anywhere. I was 16 when I first saw it, and as I couldn't walk well at the time, it stuck with me.
I know what you are on about, nobody else does. And you are Acton rather strangely giving it the diaresis in this context. Though I am sure you will have a wuthering response to that.
If you're getting confused between the Brontë sisters and the Dukes of Brontë, it's time to make an End. Not necessarily a Bell End, of course.
I'm not, you are. Nelson was Duce di Bronte in Sicily, which until 7.24pm today nobody has ever written with a diaresis or umlaut. That was a choice of that old nutter Brunty, or Prunty, when he rather arbitrarily changed his name.
Bonus fact: went to Bronte last summer. Lovely palace they built him, but he never saw it.
Reminds me of a piece I saw in a Hoxton gallery - entitled “A constant state of revolution”
Tom Breaker: Look, Bill, if this is about reliving the 60's, you can forget about it, buddy. The movement is dead.
William Strannix: Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, his is quite an achievement. I've been following him for years.
But... (and I whisper this quietly): when you spend over five years doing the walk full-time, then it doesn't become quite a walk: it becomes a lifestyle. Which is fine, but it's a very different sort of walk. Possibly more enjoyable than what I did.
I'll have to get 'Finding Hildasay'; I think I've got every other book written by coastal walkers, from 'I met Granny Vera' to 'Two feet, Four Paws'. It's a rather odd collection, both of books and their very different authors.
Salt Path?
That's not about walking the entire coast; just the SWCP.
BTW, the SWCP is officially 630 miles. My walk along the SWCP (in winter) was around 800 miles, as I walked up all the estuaries rather than take ferries. I'm hardcore, me.
The Royal Navy introduced its first simple epaulettes in 1795. However, not for all ranks: commanders initially wore one on the left shoulder, captains with less than three years’ service one on the right, and captains with more than three years’ service two. This changed in 1812, when lieutenants also wore one on the right shoulder, and from 1827 on both shoulders. Commanders wore one, commanders two, and captains with less than three years’ service two, with a braided anchor on them.
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
I expect some Tory losses to Labour in the North and Midlands but a few Tory gains from the LDs in the South too.
Overall a shrug shoulders result for Sunak and certainly nowhere near as bad as the 1,330 Tory Council seats lost in May 2019
In May 2019, Labour also polled a notional 28% nationally in the round of local elections. I think "some" is doing a lot of work in your penultimate paragraph. It's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of losses to Labour given the likely disparity in polling. As to the Conservative-LD/Independent contests in the south, I expect little change.
Hundreds would still be much better than the over 1,000 Tory council seats May lost in 2019 and percentage wise better than Boris too who lost over 400 Tory council seats last year when fewer seats were up than will be up in May
I know what you are on about, nobody else does. And you are Acton rather strangely giving it the diaresis in this context. Though I am sure you will have a wuthering response to that.
If you're getting confused between the Brontë sisters and the Dukes of Brontë, it's time to make an End. Not necessarily a Bell End, of course.
I'm not, you are. Nelson was Duce di Bronte in Sicily, which until 7.24pm today nobody has ever written with a diaresis or umlaut. That was a choice of that old nutter Brunty, or Prunty, when he rather arbitrarily changed his name.
Bonus fact: went to Bronte last summer. Lovely palace they built him, but he never saw it.
Well, forgive me, but I was a small child in 1994. At that age I got my news from, iirc, BBC Newsround. What did I say at the time? Probably something along the lines of "Oh no, that's awful" and then watched neighbours.
A decade later, though, while still a teenager, I spent a weekend in Rwanda, which included visiting a school at Gikongoro and standing a foot away from the lime covered bodies of dead Tutsis and moderate Hutus. I saw with my own eyes the slit achiles tendons on the bottom of the childrens legs - done so to prevent their victims running away, while the perpetrators could have lunch and a few beers before getting back to their genocide.
I've also read a few books and spent some time at university engaging with the literature on various genocides. Grim stuff. In the mid-2000's there was a brief debate about a"responsibility to protect" principle - how and whether it should be enshrined in International law. My conclusion isn't that state sovereignty should be inviolable, but it should be largely respected as the best long term stategy for reducing aggregate human misery and death from violence. The tiny proportion of the world population killed through violent conflict since 1945 - relative to pretty much any point prior to that is, in my considered view, largely down to the respecting of borders and national sovereignty. Russia's justification for their war is a cynical perversion of the R2P principle. It's bullshit framing for domestic consumption.
Mearsheimer, in fairness to him, sees straight through Russia's humanitarian justifications. It's all about power politics in his worldview.
There is nothing that happened in the Donbass or Crimea between the 1990's and 2014/2022 that justified Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty.
Incidentally, I passed Marshalls airport on my run this morning, and a convoy of five army vehicles of various types passed, all with red crosses on them.
Marshalls have a long history of maintaining and upgrading military vehicles, through their specialist vehicles division
I know what you are on about, nobody else does. And you are Acton rather strangely giving it the diaresis in this context. Though I am sure you will have a wuthering response to that.
If you're getting confused between the Brontë sisters and the Dukes of Brontë, it's time to make an End. Not necessarily a Bell End, of course.
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
I expect some Tory losses to Labour in the North and Midlands but a few Tory gains from the LDs in the South too.
Overall a shrug shoulders result for Sunak and certainly nowhere near as bad as the 1,330 Tory Council seats lost in May 2019
In 2019, the Tories had a rubbish result, but Labour didn't do well either. On current polling Labour should pick up a good many seats. I also think you underestimate the level of tactical voting and there will be LibDem gains. too.
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
I expect some Tory losses to Labour in the North and Midlands but a few Tory gains from the LDs in the South too.
Overall a shrug shoulders result for Sunak and certainly nowhere near as bad as the 1,330 Tory Council seats lost in May 2019
In 2019, the Tories had a rubbish result, but Labour didn't do well either. On current polling Labour should pick up a good many seats. I also think you underestimate the level of tactical voting and there will be LibDem gains. too.
In May 2019 the LDs got 19% and the Tories 28%, if anything there might even be some Tory gains from the LDs or at least no change given the current LD voteshare is less than half that and the Tory voteshare little changed.
Comments
https://media.tenor.com/kPNZUX6EgAoAAAAC/captain-k-jojo-rabbit.gif
As we grind towards the first anniversary of this phase of the war, it does look like Russia has the numbers, and in Bakhmut the short supply lines for a long battle of attrition. Losses there must be huge on both sides, but horrendous for the Russians with their frontal assaults by human waves.
I get the deliberate reference to the pre-Nazi thing.
But if the curtain doesn’t match the drapes…
I don't think so.
A Villa Persoa would have gone with the whole Italianesque theme of the uniform so much better
(Nickname, real name, adopted name?)
When we did support fascist states generally that was in support of cold War objectives, which have become rather obsolete now.
*imperfect democracies in large part, but major political progress from the dictatorships of the past.
https://willjennings.substack.com/p/will-the-polls-narrow-is-the-wrong
TLDR - the rot set in under Johnson, was exacerbated by Truss and is based on fundamentals which have unwound.
William Strannix: Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105690/quotes/?ref_=tt_trv_qu
I'm a naval historian, me, read all them Jack Aubrey books.
Although for a walking film, you can't beat Joss Ackland's "First and Last", which sadly I don't think you can buy or get online anywhere. I was 16 when I first saw it, and as I couldn't walk well at the time, it stuck with me.
https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b79485625
Bonus fact: went to Bronte last summer. Lovely palace they built him, but he never saw it.
https://youtu.be/XEECxN5P1nw
BTW, the SWCP is officially 630 miles. My walk along the SWCP (in winter) was around 800 miles, as I walked up all the estuaries rather than take ferries. I'm hardcore, me.
Rank insignia in the Navy and its development
The Royal Navy introduced its first simple epaulettes in 1795. However, not for all ranks: commanders initially wore one on the left shoulder, captains with less than three years’ service one on the right, and captains with more than three years’ service two. This changed in 1812, when lieutenants also wore one on the right shoulder, and from 1827 on both shoulders. Commanders wore one, commanders two, and captains with less than three years’ service two, with a braided anchor on them.
https://ltwilliammowett.tumblr.com/post/684615460612980736/the-epaulettes-from-1795-1860
Marshalls have a long history of maintaining and upgrading military vehicles, through their specialist vehicles division
I wonder where those vehicles will be heading ...
NEW THREAD
New Thread
Though I agree Labour will make gains