Jesus. The comments below that article. A searing hatred of young people, who simply wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do the unpaid labour that none of the commenters ever did.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.
"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.
Brown was undoubtedly a charlatan. His central political strategy was a kind of confidence trick to convince people he had hidden depths, and he relied on intimidating his rivals into submission.
What I mean is he did not view politics as a vehicle to enrich himself, to attain power for power's sake, or as primarily a game.
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
It's a lovely route. There was a bridge over the Severn (Maginnis Bridge) up for sale near Welshpool a few years back that could have cut out one of the biggest climbs. I flagged it to Sustrans but I don't think anything ever happened about it.
At the moment I'm trying to dream up a way to get a couple of dozen of these 1-4 per month thoughtful local / regional cycling Youtubers to flag up accessible routes as they film them.
Last BH I was helping a lady with fibromyalgia looking for a 35 mile step free barrier free route for a ride in the sun. She can't push a bike up two steps or a cycle-stairway without pain, or walk very far, but can do that distance in an afternoon on her E-assist cycle. It's a question constantly being asked.
The accessibility criteria are easy, and a video is better than a GPS or written route.
It's nice to see the inclusivity stuff getting everywhere slowly - the current edition of the Ramblers magazine is all over it, and Cycling UK are launching new hubs for their Inclusive Cycling Experience project (giving experience of non-standard or e- cycles) in Greater Manchester and Inverness.
The good news - there’s a general election on 4th July
The bad news - it’s 5 and a half weeks until 4th of July
Right? It’s a long, long campaign. What will be the next topic? We need to cover: tax (there will be tax cuts in the Tory manifesto), NHS, immigration, transport, housebuilding, EU relations, education.
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
It's a lovely route. There was a bridge over the Severn (Maginnis Bridge) up for sale near Welshpool a few years back that could have cut out one of the biggest climbs. I flagged it to Sustrans but I don't think anything ever happened about it.
At the moment I'm trying to dream up a way to get a couple of dozen of these 1-4 per month thoughtful local / regional cycling Youtubers to flag up accessible routes as they film them.
Last BH I was helping a lady with fibromyalgia looking for a 35 mile step free barrier free route for a ride in the sun. She can't push a bike up two steps or a cycle-stairway without pain, or walk very far, but can do that distance in an afternoon on her E-assist cycle. It's a question constantly being asked.
Yes - there's a lot of interest in crowdsourcing infrastructure information like this - makeways.org (which is associated with the Slow Ways project) is about to add cycling to the current walking focus.
Jesus. The comments below that article. A searing hatred of young people, who simply wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do the unpaid labour that none of the commenters ever did.
I think the commenters probably did do that - we now have a minumum wage on a par with the best in Europe.
But I'm wondering if we should take a lesson from Ukraine, and apply conscription it to 25 - 50 year olds
PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
I think with the current Russian leadership, it means making sure that they do not come back for a century.
And - as noted - the ultimate answer is for Russia to become a modern democracy. But that may take some time.
In the meantime it's going to be a new Iron Curtain at the border of Russia.
The problem is that Putin - and by extension, the Russian leadership - see the new 'Iron Curtain' as extending far into eastern Europe. They have expressed their intentions, and it is imperial in nature. They are Russian. They are stronk.
The old USSR was fairly happy with its borders; it had client states between it and its borders, and it could be seen the world over as being the stronkiest of stronk (as Afghanistan showed, a lie (*)).
Are we willing to cede those states to a fascist, imperialist power? If so, let us do it, and be damned by history. If not, they need protecting. And that means starting with Ukraine.
(*) Which it also showed for the USA, as did Vietnam. It's odd to think why Brezhnev did not look at the US's experience in Vietnam and think: "hmmm...."
Just back from a walk by the canal. I can report that one house had two Conservative signs prominently displayed in the front garden. Someone who actually wants Sir Philip Davies to be reelected. Remarkable.
Jesus. The comments below that article. A searing hatred of young people, who simply wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do the unpaid labour that none of the commenters ever did.
I think the commenters probably did do that - we now have a minumum wage on a par with the best in Europe.
I'm wondering if we should take a lesson from Ukraine, and apply it to 25 - 50 year olds
That's not what Cleverley said yesterday. It's almost as if they are making it up as they go along.
What about 16 and 17 year old school leavers who are called up in the middle of an apprenticeship?
What about 18 year olds who completed their apprenticeship and are kept on, only for their employer to discover they are unavailable to work for one weekend a month for the next two years?
o/t but marginally interesting in US political news, apologies if this has already been mentioned.
The Libertarian Party (after booing Trump's appearance last week) has selected an openly gay, pro-trans, gun-toting ("armed queers are harder to bash") advocate for completely open borders, decriminalise drugs, ceasefire in Gaza and (strangely for a Libertarian) pro mask mandate candidate.
I can't say I agree with all his positions but he's much more my kind of libertarian than the "far right conservative masquerading as an advocate for freedom" you usually get in the US.
Naturally your typical "far right conservative masquerading as an advocate for freedom" crowd is loudly declaring their support for Trump.
It's probably very marginal, the US Libertarian candidate only getting 1.2% of the national total in 2020. But in a close WH2024 race it might have an impact.
Just back from a walk by the canal. I can report that one house had two Conservative signs prominently displayed in the front garden. Someone who actually wants Sir Philip Davies to be reelected. Remarkable.
Almost like seeing Cthulhu emerge from the canal itself.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
Just back from a walk by the canal. I can report that one house had two Conservative signs prominently displayed in the front garden. Someone who actually wants Sir Philip Davies to be reelected. Remarkable.
Almost like seeing Cthulhu emerge from the canal itself.
I once saw a friend emerge from a duckpond, covered in duckweed, looking a little but like Cthulhu. We were both very drunk. He was also about as far away from a Tory MP as it is possible to get...
Just back from a walk by the canal. I can report that one house had two Conservative signs prominently displayed in the front garden. Someone who actually wants Sir Philip Davies to be reelected. Remarkable.
Given how rebellious he is, it is unlikely to be Rishi Sunak´s house... Lord Ashcroft´s maybe?
Just back from a walk by the canal. I can report that one house had two Conservative signs prominently displayed in the front garden. Someone who actually wants Sir Philip Davies to be reelected. Remarkable.
Not really. It was Sir Philip Davies's house you saw.
o/t but marginally interesting in US political news, apologies if this has already been mentioned.
The Libertarian Party (after booing Trump's appearance last week) has selected an openly gay, pro-trans, gun-toting ("armed queers are harder to bash") advocate for completely open borders, decriminalise drugs, ceasefire in Gaza and (strangely for a Libertarian) pro mask mandate candidate.
I can't say I agree with all his positions but he's much more my kind of libertarian than the "far right conservative masquerading as an advocate for freedom" you usually get in the US.
Naturally your typical "far right conservative masquerading as an advocate for freedom" crowd is loudly declaring their support for Trump.
It's probably very marginal, the US Libertarian candidate only getting 1.2% of the national total in 2020. But in a close WH2024 race it might have an impact.
I think I could probably vote for that candidate. I am sure there would be bits I would disagree with but the overall thrust - proper Libertarian rather than Right Wing Religious Nut masquarading - defintely pushes a lot of buttons for me.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
Wait. I thought a Royal Commission was going to work out the details? So. As it stands. 670 000 18 year olds. Of whom 30 000 "brightest and best" (wonder what walk of life they'll be from?) will be paid a yet to be determined sum to join the Forces for a year and given priority in education and employment prospects. The firmly rejected other 640 000 will effectively be unpaid, presumably unmonitored, agency workers for the State (and God knows who else) one weekend a month for two years, doing Christ alone knows what.*
Just back from a walk by the canal. I can report that one house had two Conservative signs prominently displayed in the front garden. Someone who actually wants Sir Philip Davies to be reelected. Remarkable.
Philip Davies thinks his current supporters will bring him in, or he doesn't care, or he wants out.
He's Labour target no 60 I think - Shipley?
He's resolutely refusing to talk to walking and cycling people, and insulting them in his responses. So he seems not to care about *that* vote.
I'm thinking about doing an "anti walking and cycling" Bingo Card, to tick off on Election Night as they will hopefully go down one by one, starting with Mark Harper, IDS, Theresa Coffey, Philip Davies and a few others. Lord Hogan-Howe would be on it for demanding a law that all cyclists must have insurance, when afaik a big majority already have it, but unfortunately he is unelected.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Wait. I thought a Royal Commission was going to work out the details? So. As it stands. 670 000 18 year olds. Of whom 30 000 "brightest and best" (wonder what walk of life they'll be from?) will be paid a yet to be determined sum to join the Forces for a year and given priority in education and employment prospects. The firmly rejected other 640 000 will effectively be unpaid, presumably unmonitored, agency workers for the State (and God knows who else) one weekend a month for two years, doing Christ alone knows what.*
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
Seeing as @Casino_Royale has openly admitted that he will be campaigning for the Conservative Party his posts are effectively @HYUFD style party political broadcasts
I know it's unwelcome to you to have another point of view intrude into your happy echo chamber but you're going to have to put up with it for the next 6 weeks, I'm afraid.
It's called democracy.
Is it actually your point of view though or is it actually the point of view of the party which seems to change at the drop of a hat
I always share on here my point of view.
I look forward to you criticising aspects of the Tory manifesto that you disagree with
Labour is now where our focus should be - look at the polls.
How about you look forward to me pointing out that SKS is far from the best thing since sliced bread and many of the policies he is proposing will exacerbate the problems in this country, not solve them?
I actually agree with you there, from a political strategy perspective. That's why, even if a net neutral or slight positive, the National Service thing was silly.
The Ming vase strategy requires Labour to get through 6 weeks of as little media coverage as possible. That will be easy if we get more National Service type policies from Sunak.
It's about denying any oxygen to Reform and rallying the base; it also shifts the debate to defence and security - and away from cost of living where Labour would like it.
SKS has responded by basically taking yesterday off to decide how to respond, so it has disrupted their grid, and he's trying to make a speech about security atm, but it hasn't got much beyond his first job "clearing stones for farmers" so far, which did make me chuckle.
Very sensible of him.
I hope he takes a similar approach to being PM. Working 20 hour days, and trying to respond immediately to every shift in the political wind, exhausts PMs, and is probably part of the reason they make such poor decisions from time to time.
I don't hold out any great hopes for his administration, but basic competence would be an improvement on what we've had for most of the last decade.
Exactly, your projections are based entirely on the frustrations of the existing administration.
Which is why absolutely no-one wants to hear any criticism whatever of SKS or his prospective new Labour administration.
It would destroy that.
The rather breathless praise of SKS from some quarters is an interesting one. From a purely political game, he has played a very good one (though has undeniably benefitted from the Tories imploding). I do think he gets a bit more praise than is perhaps merited: but I do think some of this comes from the fact that to many of us he is the alternative to what we see as a very bad, clapped out, tired and desperate government - so of course he comes out well in that comparison.
It will be very interesting to see how quickly that perception shifts after the GE.
Who praises Starmer breathlessly? I am not picking up on this. Even positive comments about Starmer tend to heavy qualification: "doesn't offer any hope", "underestimated", "better than Sunak" etc
'Sexy' Sir Keir has appeared from nowhere this morning and has a rather breathless quality.
De gustibus, etc.
I can't honestly think of any politician I'd ever describe as sexy.
I'm sure there are a few guilty fancies out there. For example I think Gillian Keegan has a glint in her eye, and if I were inclined that way, young Joseph Vissarionovich a total hunk.
Yikes at GK (no ta), but The Young Man Of Steel (Abs) is worth using my daily pic quota for.
I’ve always liked famous but out of context art
At home I have a painting of Abe Lincoln diving for crayfish
Wait. I thought a Royal Commission was going to work out the details? So. As it stands. 670 000 18 year olds. Of whom 30 000 "brightest and best" (wonder what walk of life they'll be from?) will be paid a yet to be determined sum to join the Forces for a year and given priority in education and employment prospects. The firmly rejected other 640 000 will effectively be unpaid, presumably unmonitored, agency workers for the State (and God knows who else) one weekend a month for two years, doing Christ alone knows what.*
*As of 3:42 Monday.
There are multiple giveaways that it's not meant to happen.
Partly that it's been pinged out as a press release on Saturday night during a flailing election campaign.
Partly because the rollout of the main scheme is pencilled in for after the next election.
Partly because the funding is largely fictional.
And because it's purely decorative, why should any of the bits behind the façade be connected to anything?
That's not what Cleverley said yesterday. It's almost as if they are making it up as they go along.
What about 16 and 17 year old school leavers who are called up in the middle of an apprenticeship?
What about 18 year olds who completed their apprenticeship and are kept on, only for their employer to discover they are unavailable to work for one weekend a month for the next two years?
So we're at the stage of this National Service shambles where Tories are seriously suggesting parents are prosecuted over their adult children's refusal to do what they're told at the weekends by the state.
I don't know, but it doesn't sound too conservative.
This is the least libertarian Government of my lifetime.
Not sure if anyone from left or right could disagree with that, even those a lot older than I?
Blair tried to introduce ID cards, 90 day detention without trial and ASBOs. He was someone so sure that whatever the police do must be right that he voluntarily submitted his DNA to a database, presumably so they could catch him for a crime he committed in the future.
Starmer will probably be even worse. He would probably still have us in lockdown as he opposed every measure to relax it.
He actually *did* introduce indefinite prison sentences, which people are still serving. As outrageous to me as blood and Post office scandals. And of course if we get an inquiry it will be decades late and no help for those who have committed suicide in prison
Oh I see.
Well just confirms many of my views on Tony Blair, which I’ve made no secret about on here. I disliked him then and I dislike him now.
I marched against the war in Iraq, standing right behind someone called Jeremy Corbyn.
Bloody proud I did too.
Cool story. Are you the one on the left or the right?
Haha excellent!
There were, iirc, 3 anti Iraq war marches? I think mine was the 15th Feb one. Keep digging around and there’s a vague possibility you’ll find me.
Young and gorgeous, obvs
I was there on the 15th Feb. The huge crowd and slow pace of the march gave a great opportunity for an impromptu pub crawl through central London - Remember starting with one near the British Museum, popping into the Spice of Life as we passed Cambridge Circus, had another near Green Park where I also remember popping into a Bookies to watch See More Business get what I think was his final win at Wincanton. Then avoiding the speechifying in Hyde Park, I headed for the Carpenters Arms near Marble Arch before getting the train home.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
I think with the current Russian leadership, it means making sure that they do not come back for a century.
And - as noted - the ultimate answer is for Russia to become a modern democracy. But that may take some time.
In the meantime it's going to be a new Iron Curtain at the border of Russia.
The problem is that Putin - and by extension, the Russian leadership - see the new 'Iron Curtain' as extending far into eastern Europe. They have expressed their intentions, and it is imperial in nature. They are Russian. They are stronk.
The old USSR was fairly happy with its borders; it had client states between it and its borders, and it could be seen the world over as being the stronkiest of stronk (as Afghanistan showed, a lie (*)).
Are we willing to cede those states to a fascist, imperialist power? If so, let us do it, and be damned by history. If not, they need protecting. And that means starting with Ukraine.
(*) Which it also showed for the USA, as did Vietnam. It's odd to think why Brezhnev did not look at the US's experience in Vietnam and think: "hmmm...."
The Russians thought they won in Vietnam.
So they assumed that history was On Their Side and Afghanistan would be more of the same.
Under Bush II, the Vietnamese government offered Cam Rahn Bay as a naval base to replace the Philippines. Which, given that the original reason for the whole Vietnam comedy was to deny it to the USSR as a naval base…
That's not what Cleverley said yesterday. It's almost as if they are making it up as they go along.
What about 16 and 17 year old school leavers who are called up in the middle of an apprenticeship?
What about 18 year olds who completed their apprenticeship and are kept on, only for their employer to discover they are unavailable to work for one weekend a month for the next two years?
You roster around that
Also I don't suppose it must be on the weekend either, it just would be for most.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.
"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.
Brown was undoubtedly a charlatan. His central political strategy was a kind of confidence trick to convince people he had hidden depths, and he relied on intimidating his rivals into submission.
What I mean is he did not view politics as a vehicle to enrich himself, to attain power for power's sake, or as primarily a game.
I agree he didn't view it as a vehicle to enrich himself. And yes, he took it, and himself, far too seriously to see it mostly as a game.
But to attain power for its own sake, I'm not so sure. Brown schemed, plotted and bided his time for ten years to become PM, and, when he did, obviously had no idea what to do with it. Everybody assumed there would be some great package of reforms, but there was nothing at all. Given that he didn't want money, the only thing I can assume is that he did actually want power for its own sake.
@harry_horton PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
That sorta ignores the whole reason NATO was set up in the first place. You also ignore what Trump says in those links I gave. I wonder why... ?
Not managing to get through to the article there but I am going for "not very".
Presumably, if it was possible, the current cabinet and the Chancellor in particular should be getting surcharged for the failure to recover it over the last decade?
TLDR and others have said similar. It is possible to collect meaningfully more tax, but you need to be focused on tax collection and have a well organised and resourced tax collection system. It's as much about being clear what taxes people need to pay and making it easier for them to work it out and make the payments, as it is about cracking down on evasion.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
@harry_horton PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
@KevinASchofield Labour source: “The worst encounter between a politician and cones since John Major’s hotline.”
He does better than I likely would have.
I agree with the general thesis that some of the criticism of Rishi is pathetic. The main reason for not voting for him is that he has appalling political judgment not because his dribbling skills are lacking.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
As I posted last night, I think the Nashy Servs ideal will be popular with a significant few.
Having said that, I explained it to my wife - who I find to be reflexively authoritarian in contrast to my instinctive liberalism - and she was hopping mad.
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
Just back from a walk by the canal. I can report that one house had two Conservative signs prominently displayed in the front garden. Someone who actually wants Sir Philip Davies to be reelected. Remarkable.
Not really. It was Sir Philip Davies's house you saw.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
New Statesman has the Tory share dropping by just 4.7% in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, but by a mammoth 30.1% in Rishi's seat of Richmond & Northallerton.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
New Statesman has the Tory share dropping by just 4.7% in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, but by a mammoth 30.1% in Rishi's seat of Richmond & Northallerton.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
While in office, Trump did nothing to persuade Putin to pull back from Crimea or the Donbas.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
Give over, not even you believe that nonsense.
It's self-evidently true.
No, it's not. Deterrence relies on the credible threat of retaliation. The more doubt there is of retaliation, the weaker the deterrence. The weaker the deterrence, the more likely the deterree (yes, deterree, I'm not backing down on the invented word) tries his luck. You don't fuck around with deterrence. The potential enemy has to know that you mean it.
Lucy Allan, Tory MP for Telford just endorsed the Reform candidate in her seat. Can’t remember if any Tories backed Goldsmith’s crew in 1997 but wouldn’t surprise me if they did. This campaign is going from bad to worse for Rishi.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
Lucy Allan, Tory MP for Telford just endorsed the Reform candidate in her seat. Can’t remember if any Tories backed Goldsmith’s crew in 1997 but wouldn’t surprise me if they did. This campaign is going from bad to worse for Rishi.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
Give over, not even you believe that nonsense.
It's self-evidently true.
No, it's not. Deterrence relies on the credible threat of retaliation. The more doubt there is of retaliation, the weaker the deterrence. The weaker the deterrence, the more likely the deterree (yes, deterree, I'm not backing down on the invented word) tries his luck. You don't fuck around with deterrence. The potential enemy has to know that you mean it.
That's why it was right for Trump (and other US presidents) to warn European countries not to fuck around with deterrence by underinvesting in defence. To think that it's all about relying on Daddy America to protect us shows an infantilised mentality.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
While in office, Trump did nothing to persuade Putin to pull back from Crimea or the Donbas.
Thee brexiteers and expresserati are super eager for Trump, but they seem to not be aware that a Trump presidency will drive the UK into the arms of the EU at a much much accelerated rate. Equally, as a rejoiner, I am at odds with myself about Trump. I can't imagine a worse president, but his presidency will promote much much close british-eu relations across all policy domains... what a conundrum 🤷♂️
Jesus. That pen-profile of the illustrious author at the top of the article.
Cleanse my eyes!
It's paywalled, so I cannot read the whole thing. But the paragraph I can read contains a falsehood. Bull Gates was seen as being 'bad' throughout the eighties - witness Slashdot's Borg-Gates caricature on any MS story. MS were the bad guys; Apple okay; Linux et al the good guys.
Gates was never really seen as being an 'amiable nerd making glitchy but intriguing software.' as the author wrongly claims.
He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
While in office, Trump did nothing to persuade Putin to pull back from Crimea or the Donbas.
Thank you for again highlighting the fact that Russia gained territory on Obama and Biden's watch and not while Trump was in power.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
There won't be anything "organised" like J6 (yeah, I know, but you know, from the top is what I mean). But there are some absolute fucking basket cases around. When Boris was teetering, you saw the likes of Andrea Jenkyns and Madine Dorries go off the rails. And down to the activist level, like our Hampshire Jihadi, anything could happen. An isolated attack is possible, but nothing like J6, we're not that far gone (yet).
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
It didn't happen in 1997. Nowhere near.
I'd actually argue the hard left / pro-Hamas section are more likely to go ballistic.
Lucy Allan, Tory MP for Telford just endorsed the Reform candidate in her seat. Can’t remember if any Tories backed Goldsmith’s crew in 1997 but wouldn’t surprise me if they did. This campaign is going from bad to worse for Rishi.
A pity she didn't cross the floor just before the final PMQs, but every little helps.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
The relevant right are 60 and older. And unarmed.
That has been the electoral basis true, but there is a very aggressive core of young uneducated white men with no prospects who are extremely active on the far right....
New Statesman has the Tory share dropping by just 4.7% in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, but by a mammoth 30.1% in Rishi's seat of Richmond & Northallerton.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
The relevant right are 60 and older. And unarmed.
That has been the electoral basis true, but there is a very aggressive core of young uneducated white men with no prospects who are extremely active on the far right....
They are a problem no matter who is in government.
He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).
Indeed. Gates was a never an amiable nerd, right from the start when Microsoft negotiated the DOS contract with IBM he was a ruthless businessman, always looking to push Microsoft's interests forward no matter what. Many of the tactics MS employed under Gates were reminiscent of the old robber barons, and courts punished the company accordingly in the end.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
Give over, not even you believe that nonsense.
It's self-evidently true.
No, it's not. Deterrence relies on the credible threat of retaliation. The more doubt there is of retaliation, the weaker the deterrence. The weaker the deterrence, the more likely the deterree (yes, deterree, I'm not backing down on the invented word) tries his luck. You don't fuck around with deterrence. The potential enemy has to know that you mean it.
That's why it was right for Trump (and other US presidents) to warn European countries not to fuck around with deterrence by underinvesting in defence. To think that it's all about relying on Daddy America to protect us shows an infantilised mentality.
But this goes way beyond talking about underinvestment. You can have those conversations in private. You can even have them in public without actually ENCOURAGING the person you are supposed to be deterring from making war.
It's like thinking your neighbour should pull their weight in the neighbourhood watch duties, and when you feel they aren't doing it, you go to the dodgiest boozer you can find and tell all the lowlifes to rob their house and you won't stop them. Whatever point you had is washed away by the strenuous, towering stupidity of the way you went about it. Trump is a fucking idiot.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
The UK is nowhere near that polarised.
Plus the rather obvious point that Trump was the candidate of the radical right. Sunak is not. He is not really the candidate of anyone except the 'my party right or wrong' Tory core. He is as much a target of the supposed betrayal narrative as Starmer - more so even.
There are a number of reasons why this early election was a terrible decision by Sunak but even if you put the case for the defence it is obvious that the Tories weren't ready for it.
New Statesman has the Tory share dropping by just 4.7% in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, but by a mammoth 30.1% in Rishi's seat of Richmond & Northallerton.
Comments
The bad news - it’s 5 and a half weeks until 4th of July
The comments below that article.
A searing hatred of young people, who simply wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do the unpaid labour that none of the commenters ever did.
To take the blame when it goes wrong.
Last BH I was helping a lady with fibromyalgia looking for a 35 mile step free barrier free route for a ride in the sun. She can't push a bike up two steps or a cycle-stairway without pain, or walk very far, but can do that distance in an afternoon on her E-assist cycle. It's a question constantly being asked.
The accessibility criteria are easy, and a video is better than a GPS or written route.
It's nice to see the inclusivity stuff getting everywhere slowly - the current edition of the Ramblers magazine is all over it, and Cycling UK are launching new hubs for their Inclusive Cycling Experience project (giving experience of non-standard or e- cycles) in Greater Manchester and Inverness.
What will be the next topic? We need to cover: tax (there will be tax cuts in the Tory manifesto), NHS, immigration, transport, housebuilding, EU relations, education.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/overview/nationalservice/
But I'm wondering if we should take a lesson from Ukraine, and apply conscription it to 25 - 50 year olds
https://x.com/harry_horton/status/1795097332624548102
PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
The old USSR was fairly happy with its borders; it had client states between it and its borders, and it could be seen the world over as being the stronkiest of stronk (as Afghanistan showed, a lie (*)).
Are we willing to cede those states to a fascist, imperialist power? If so, let us do it, and be damned by history. If not, they need protecting. And that means starting with Ukraine.
(*) Which it also showed for the USA, as did Vietnam. It's odd to think why Brezhnev did not look at the US's experience in Vietnam and think: "hmmm...."
The Libertarian Party (after booing Trump's appearance last week) has selected an openly gay, pro-trans, gun-toting ("armed queers are harder to bash") advocate for completely open borders, decriminalise drugs, ceasefire in Gaza and (strangely for a Libertarian) pro mask mandate candidate.
I can't say I agree with all his positions but he's much more my kind of libertarian than the "far right conservative masquerading as an advocate for freedom" you usually get in the US.
Naturally your typical "far right conservative masquerading as an advocate for freedom" crowd is loudly declaring their support for Trump.
It's probably very marginal, the US Libertarian candidate only getting 1.2% of the national total in 2020. But in a close WH2024 race it might have an impact.
It was Sir Philip Davies's house you saw.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
I thought a Royal Commission was going to work out the details?
So. As it stands.
670 000 18 year olds.
Of whom 30 000 "brightest and best" (wonder what walk of life they'll be from?) will be paid a yet to be determined sum to join the Forces for a year and given priority in education and employment prospects.
The firmly rejected other 640 000 will effectively be unpaid, presumably unmonitored, agency workers for the State (and God knows who else) one weekend a month for two years, doing Christ alone knows what.*
*As of 3:42 Monday.
He's Labour target no 60 I think - Shipley?
He's resolutely refusing to talk to walking and cycling people, and insulting them in his responses. So he seems not to care about *that* vote.
A modestly partisan report:
https://road.cc/content/news/mp-accused-massive-prejudice-against-cyclists-308517
I'm thinking about doing an "anti walking and cycling" Bingo Card, to tick off on Election Night as they will hopefully go down one by one, starting with Mark Harper, IDS, Theresa Coffey, Philip Davies and a few others. Lord Hogan-Howe would be on it for demanding a law that all cyclists must have insurance, when afaik a big majority already have it, but unfortunately he is unelected.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
He also called on Russia to invade other NATO members:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-comments-urging-russia-to-invade-delinquent-nato-members
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
At home I have a painting of Abe Lincoln diving for crayfish
Sunak will finally be free of the shackles of British rule. Independence Day!
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts
Partly that it's been pinged out as a press release on Saturday night during a flailing election campaign.
Partly because the rollout of the main scheme is pencilled in for after the next election.
Partly because the funding is largely fictional.
And because it's purely decorative, why should any of the bits behind the façade be connected to anything?
Truly however a memorable day.
So they assumed that history was On Their Side and Afghanistan would be more of the same.
Under Bush II, the Vietnamese government offered Cam Rahn Bay as a naval base to replace the Philippines. Which, given that the original reason for the whole Vietnam comedy was to deny it to the USSR as a naval base…
But to attain power for its own sake, I'm not so sure. Brown schemed, plotted and bided his time for ten years to become PM, and, when he did, obviously had no idea what to do with it. Everybody assumed there would be some great package of reforms, but there was nothing at all. Given that he didn't want money, the only thing I can assume is that he did actually want power for its own sake.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
https://x.com/harry_horton/status/1795097332624548102
@KevinASchofield
Labour source: “The worst encounter between a politician and cones since John Major’s hotline.”
It's always Leon...
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
I agree with the general thesis that some of the criticism of Rishi is pathetic. The main reason for not voting for him is that he has appalling political judgment not because his dribbling skills are lacking.
Having said that, I explained it to my wife - who I find to be reflexively authoritarian in contrast to my instinctive liberalism - and she was hopping mad.
If I worked at MI5 I'd be putting him under surveillance.
We all might!
A family kicked off a flight for wanting an allergy announcement.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kkzzy8eqjo
I have no idea if they were being wise, the airline crass, or if the parents are over-reacting.
"Sam Altman is not evil
Sean Thomas"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sam-altman-is-not-evil/
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts
Would you like to know more?
Tory MP stepping down, supporting Reform candidate. 👇🏼
https://x.com/lucyallan/status/1795110435655463196
Deterrence relies on the credible threat of retaliation. The more doubt there is of retaliation, the weaker the deterrence. The weaker the deterrence, the more likely the deterree (yes, deterree, I'm not backing down on the invented word) tries his luck.
You don't fuck around with deterrence. The potential enemy has to know that you mean it.
LATEST SEAT PREDICTION: LIVINGSTON
LAB
@gregorpoynton
GAIN FROM SNP
@HannahB4LiviMP
MAJ: 7.1%
[UKPR Default]
https://pollingreport.uk/seats/S14000095
Cleanse my eyes!
It's paywalled, so I cannot read the whole thing. But the paragraph I can read contains a falsehood. Bull Gates was seen as being 'bad' throughout the eighties - witness Slashdot's Borg-Gates caricature on any MS story. MS were the bad guys; Apple okay; Linux et al the good guys.
Gates was never really seen as being an 'amiable nerd making glitchy but intriguing software.' as the author wrongly claims.
He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).
But there are some absolute fucking basket cases around. When Boris was teetering, you saw the likes of Andrea Jenkyns and Madine Dorries go off the rails. And down to the activist level, like our Hampshire Jihadi, anything could happen. An isolated attack is possible, but nothing like J6, we're not that far gone (yet).
I'd actually argue the hard left / pro-Hamas section are more likely to go ballistic.
Any opinion polls out today do we know?
Was thinking that because this is half-term week I’d rather wait until the end of next week to see how the tree is shaking
And the mayoral may have given them some jitters
To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.
(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)
It's like thinking your neighbour should pull their weight in the neighbourhood watch duties, and when you feel they aren't doing it, you go to the dodgiest boozer you can find and tell all the lowlifes to rob their house and you won't stop them.
Whatever point you had is washed away by the strenuous, towering stupidity of the way you went about it. Trump is a fucking idiot.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/27/parents-could-be-fined-children-refuse-national-service/
There are a number of reasons why this early election was a terrible decision by Sunak but even if you put the case for the defence it is obvious that the Tories weren't ready for it.
Unlikely, but as I've said previously I've heard from friends who live round those parts he isn't very popular as a local MP.
And it saves him taking the Chiltern Hundreds a month later so he can be in Silicon Valley by September, so it's probably a win-win for him...