Skip to content

Russia Today and the Fremen Mirage – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,802
edited 3:45AM in General
Russia Today and the Fremen Mirage – politicalbetting.com

It’s a truism of pop history that wealthy “civilised” states are always at a disadvantage, when fighting against poorer but tougher adversaries, whether those enemies are steppe horsemen, desert tribes, guerillas, or religious fanatics.  In more modern times, the weakness of democratic nations (attempting as they do, to adhere to the Law of Armed Conflict, and being wary of heavy casualties), is contra…

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,842
    First! (nearly)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,923
    edited 4:12AM
    That's twice in three races we've nearly had a catastrophe involving the marshals, absolute shocker by race control.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,923
    viewcode said:

    First! (nearly)

    You are first now.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523
    5th like Lewis Hamilton.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 807
    Europe should now present its own 28 point peace plan including:
    * immediate ceasefire at current line of contact
    * negotiations to start re status of occupied territories - expectation that Russia will need to withdraw from Kherson & Zhaporizia but could retain occupied parts of Donbas & Crimea but which shall be demilitarised
    * A no-fly zone imposed across all of Ukraine east of Dnieper river (including occupied territories). To be enforced by European air forces
    * European (inc Turkey) peace-keeping forces on the ground - subject to Ukrainian agreement.
    * Putin & Zhelensky to both stand aside with free elections within 1 year.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Good morning, everyone.

    Utterly pissing it down here. Normally I would've got soaked walking the dog, but the horrendous 3.30am time of getting up at least ensured I stayed dry.

    F1: feel a bit peeved as there was bad luck at the start and end (reliability and then reliability but too late). Still, I called almost everything wrong but that makes up for last time, I suppose. Qatar next.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523
    edited 6:26AM
    Here’s a large power station in Moscow with a smoking problem this morning.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1992450076283932880
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Cicero said:

    A good piece, although it overlooks Russian subversion of the free world. The role of bribery and blackmail has been a significant one, and in many ways has been an important war front for the Russians. Trump's craven attitude to Putin is extremely significant. The EU must go ahead and take on the financial support for Kyiv and dare Trump to sabotage the process. Given the extraordinarily unpopularity of Trump at home, there is a high chance that he will not be able to break NATO even if he wants to. It forces the GOP to confront their little problem.
    Any kind of Russian peace is simply a pause before World War III, so to give up after four years of Russian brutality and aggression will make the world a lot less safe. The UK, EU, Canada and a coalition of the willing must see this through or we will enter a very dark future indeed.

    If China do decide to have a crack at Taiwan, lining up the timing with another Russian invasion of Ukraine might be a factor too.

    Agree entirely on Europe generally (and reliable allies elsewhere) getting used to not relying on the US. It's fickle, unpredictable, and untrustworthy right now, and that should not be assumed to be destined to change.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    Herodotus isn't so much a historian, as the original unreliable narrator.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    edited 7:07AM
    Nigelb said:

    Herodotus isn't so much a historian, as the original unreliable narrator.

    Setting aside my quibble, it's a good and entertaining header, which makes a strong point.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Also, good header.

    I do think there's some value in the softened by luxury line, though. It applies to much of Europe. We've got to take a lead here.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    Nigelb said:

    All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.

    What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting.
    Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.

    It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.

    We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia.
    And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.

    Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies.
    And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.

    King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619

    From the senate press conference:

    SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions
    : "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff..

    https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1992364072860582183

    And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:

    This is blatantly false. *

    As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.

    https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236

    *It clearly isn't blatantly false.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    I don't know much about Tommy Piggot (annoyingly, Wikipedia takes you to the British MP Thomas Piggott), but his posts on X read as though they were written by Karoline Leavitt.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    The genesis of the whole fuckup seems to be this.

    Trump officials' meeting with Russian in Miami spurs questions about Ukraine proposal

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-officials-meeting-with-russian-miami-spurs-questions-about-latest-ukraine-2025-11-22/
    Nov 22 (Reuters) - U.S. officials and lawmakers are increasingly concerned about a meeting last month in which representatives of the Trump administration met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy who is under U.S. sanctions, to draft a plan to end the war in Ukraine, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

    The meeting took place in Miami at the end of October and included special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who leads the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Russia's largest sovereign wealth funds.

    A close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitriev has taken a leading role in talks with the U.S. about the war and has met with Witkoff several times this year. The Trump administration issued a special waiver to allow his entry, a senior U.S. official told Reuters.

    The meeting resulted in a 28-point plan for ending the war, two people familiar with the situation said. The plan, which was made public this week by Axios, came as a surprise to U.S. officials in various corners of the administration and has stirred confusion at embassies throughout Washington and in European capitals...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,323
    Nigelb said:

    The genesis of the whole fuckup seems to be this.

    Trump officials' meeting with Russian in Miami spurs questions about Ukraine proposal

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-officials-meeting-with-russian-miami-spurs-questions-about-latest-ukraine-2025-11-22/
    Nov 22 (Reuters) - U.S. officials and lawmakers are increasingly concerned about a meeting last month in which representatives of the Trump administration met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy who is under U.S. sanctions, to draft a plan to end the war in Ukraine, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

    The meeting took place in Miami at the end of October and included special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who leads the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Russia's largest sovereign wealth funds.

    A close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitriev has taken a leading role in talks with the U.S. about the war and has met with Witkoff several times this year. The Trump administration issued a special waiver to allow his entry, a senior U.S. official told Reuters.

    The meeting resulted in a 28-point plan for ending the war, two people familiar with the situation said. The plan, which was made public this week by Axios, came as a surprise to U.S. officials in various corners of the administration and has stirred confusion at embassies throughout Washington and in European capitals...

    I linked to a long blog yesterday from a diplomatic source that purported to set out the whole story
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,323
    Meanwhile I see that the trailed Labourlist polling story is out, and relates to Starmer’s relative unpopularity with Labour’s membership, matched up against most of the obvious alternative potential candidates for leader. In particular he loses by a clear margin to Burnham or Rayner. While Streeting also squeaks through in the poll, I’d suggest it’s not actually good news for him, as the narrowness of the margin, his highest number of don’t knows and the relative greater popularity of his rivals suggests his only route to the top is through some sort of coronation? DYOR
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    edited 7:37AM
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.

    What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting.
    Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.

    It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.

    We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia.
    And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.

    Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies.
    And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.

    King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619

    From the senate press conference:

    SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions
    : "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff..

    https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1992364072860582183

    And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:

    This is blatantly false. *

    As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.

    https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236

    *It clearly isn't blatantly false.
    It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.

    Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.

    Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).

    Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).

    Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.

    Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    Cicero said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.

    What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting.
    Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.

    It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.

    We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia.
    And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.

    Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies.
    And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.

    King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619

    From the senate press conference:

    SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions
    : "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff..

    https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1992364072860582183

    And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:

    This is blatantly false. *

    As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.

    https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236

    *It clearly isn't blatantly false.
    Trying to force a deal is blowing up in their faces. They will have to back off. The damage this is doing *to the US* is increasingly serious.
    Putting a fool (Witkoff) and an amoral seeker after billion dollar deals with dodgy regimes (Kushner) in charge of negotiating foreign policy, on the basis of one being an old real estate crony, and the other family, was never going to turn out well,

    And having a VP and his coterie who are, for whatever reason, virulently anti-Ukraine (and NATO), with the ear of an ageing president with limited attention span, means that these attempts to sell out Europe will crop up regularly.

    This one is just the most blatant.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,323
    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.

    What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting.
    Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.

    It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.

    We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia.
    And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.

    Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies.
    And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.

    King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619

    From the senate press conference:

    SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions
    : "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff..

    https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1992364072860582183

    And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:

    This is blatantly false. *

    As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.

    https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236

    *It clearly isn't blatantly false.
    It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.

    Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.

    Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).

    Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).

    Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.

    Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
    I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked.
    There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other.
    It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.

    If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable.
    Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.

    If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,059
    If Don's lunatic antics do encourage European nations to rearm,and set a baseline for minimum future armament supplies, one could say Trump Spurs Arsenal Fixture

    In other words, what is better than a North London derby? Shame it's at the Emirates..
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,323
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523
    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    The genesis of the whole fuckup seems to be this.

    Trump officials' meeting with Russian in Miami spurs questions about Ukraine proposal

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-officials-meeting-with-russian-miami-spurs-questions-about-latest-ukraine-2025-11-22/
    Nov 22 (Reuters) - U.S. officials and lawmakers are increasingly concerned about a meeting last month in which representatives of the Trump administration met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy who is under U.S. sanctions, to draft a plan to end the war in Ukraine, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

    The meeting took place in Miami at the end of October and included special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who leads the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Russia's largest sovereign wealth funds.

    A close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitriev has taken a leading role in talks with the U.S. about the war and has met with Witkoff several times this year. The Trump administration issued a special waiver to allow his entry, a senior U.S. official told Reuters.

    The meeting resulted in a 28-point plan for ending the war, two people familiar with the situation said. The plan, which was made public this week by Axios, came as a surprise to U.S. officials in various corners of the administration and has stirred confusion at embassies throughout Washington and in European capitals...

    I linked to a long blog yesterday from a diplomatic source that purported to set out the whole story
    Do you want to relink that ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    Gosh indeed. Betfair's already altered the title odds, alas, but I'm greener on Verstappen than Norris anyway.

    I'll have to check the Ladbrokes market to see if Russell ends up settled as a winner.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    I'm not bloody surprised given the amount of sparks flying from underneath the cars at every corner.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523

    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    Gosh indeed. Betfair's already altered the title odds, alas, but I'm greener on Verstappen than Norris anyway.

    I'll have to check the Ladbrokes market to see if Russell ends up settled as a winner.
    With the McLarens excluded Russell will be 2nd and Antonelli 3rd. The question is do they settle on the provisional result or the final result?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,740
    edited 8:01AM
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying legal is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.

    What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting.
    Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.

    It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.

    We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia.
    And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.

    Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies.
    And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.

    King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619

    From the senate press conference:

    SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions
    : "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff..

    https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1992364072860582183

    And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:

    This is blatantly false. *

    As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.

    https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236

    *It clearly isn't blatantly false.
    It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.

    Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.

    Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).

    Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).

    Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.

    Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
    I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked.
    There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other.
    It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.

    If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable.
    Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.

    If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
    Which is of course one reason why Vance was chosen, along with his - ahem - close association with Trump Jr.

    Of course, if his marriage does collapse over one of his affairs that may hurt him in MAGAland (although it doesn't seem to hurt Trump).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    State Department is backpedalling on Rubio’s backpedal. If for a moment you thought the grown-ups were back in charge, think again. We’re still in the circus. “Unbelievable,” mutters one disbelieving senator
    https://x.com/AntonLaGuardia/status/1992412662987358243

    Foreign nations now have to deal with rival factions of the U.S. government who keep major policy initiatives secret from each other and some of which work with foreign powers as the succession battle for 2028 begins, is how one diplomat put it.
    https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1992414242923016202

  • TazTaz Posts: 22,502

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    If even Farage and Hannan are turning on Trump, you can tell he's screwed up more than the average solicitor for the Post Office.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    edited 8:07AM
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
    It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.

    Commons average age - 49.
    Lords average age - 71
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    Gosh indeed. Betfair's already altered the title odds, alas, but I'm greener on Verstappen than Norris anyway.

    I'll have to check the Ladbrokes market to see if Russell ends up settled as a winner.
    With the McLarens excluded Russell will be 2nd and Antonelli 3rd. The question is do they settle on the provisional result or the final result?
    It's bloody ages since this has been relevant but I think last time Ladbrokes indicated it was the final result after DSQs (but this was a decade or so ago...).

    Also, 5 place grid penalty for Bortoleto. Entirely fair.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,658
    edited 8:13AM
    So the 28 point peace plan has imploded already !

    The US administration are so thick they couldn’t even be bothered to get a professional translation of the plan that was handed to them by the Kremlin .

    Rubio can say what ever he likes now . No one’s believing his denials . One of the senators who was in the meeting with Rubio is from the GOP so hardly a Dem hoax .
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    Gosh indeed. Betfair's already altered the title odds, alas, but I'm greener on Verstappen than Norris anyway.

    I'll have to check the Ladbrokes market to see if Russell ends up settled as a winner.
    With the McLarens excluded Russell will be 2nd and Antonelli 3rd. The question is do they settle on the provisional result or the final result?
    It's bloody ages since this has been relevant but I think last time Ladbrokes indicated it was the final result after DSQs (but this was a decade or so ago...).

    Also, 5 place grid penalty for Bortoleto. Entirely fair.
    IIRC there was a row a couple of years ago with different bookies Tc&Cs, I think Betfair settle on the provisional result straight after the podium ceremony, whereas the more traditional bookies wait for the final result after scrutineering, protests, appeals etc.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    This was posted in July.
    It looks as though they've now decided to go for Plan B.

    The more that members of the Trump administration talk, the more it sounds as if Plan A to stop the war was to coerce Ukraine into capitulation and Plan B was to keep repeating Plan A until it worked. When it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, they were out of ideas.
    https://x.com/ruth_deyermond/status/1950973119448932545
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    Gosh indeed. Betfair's already altered the title odds, alas, but I'm greener on Verstappen than Norris anyway.

    I'll have to check the Ladbrokes market to see if Russell ends up settled as a winner.
    With the McLarens excluded Russell will be 2nd and Antonelli 3rd. The question is do they settle on the provisional result or the final result?
    It's bloody ages since this has been relevant but I think last time Ladbrokes indicated it was the final result after DSQs (but this was a decade or so ago...).

    Also, 5 place grid penalty for Bortoleto. Entirely fair.
    IIRC there was a row a couple of years ago with different bookies Tc&Cs, I think Betfair settle on the provisional result straight after the podium ceremony, whereas the more traditional bookies wait for the final result after scrutineering, protests, appeals etc.
    Yeah. I never make bookie (as opposed to exchange) bets with Betfair, mind. I once had a bet on Hamilton to win or finish top 3 or such and they voided it because he started from the pit lane (which was public knowledge at the time I made the bet) with a 'goodwill' free bet sum instead. .... Yeah, fantastic.

    Ladbrokes, however, have been pretty solid. Have to wait a bit to see if they switch things around. Assuming Norris is disqualified.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,057
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
    It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.

    Commons average age - 49.
    Lords average age - 71
    The Commons are wanting to bump off their elderly relatives, the Lords not so keen to be bumped off?
  • TazTaz Posts: 22,502
    Nigelb said:

    This was posted in July.
    It looks as though they've now decided to go for Plan B.

    The more that members of the Trump administration talk, the more it sounds as if Plan A to stop the war was to coerce Ukraine into capitulation and Plan B was to keep repeating Plan A until it worked. When it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, they were out of ideas.
    https://x.com/ruth_deyermond/status/1950973119448932545

    Aside from the MAGA lot has anyone across the political divide supported this plan ?

    It seems to have unified people across politics.

    Trump rolling back and saying it’s not a final plan too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523

    nico67 said:

    So the 28 point peace plan has imploded already !

    The US administration are so thick they couldn’t even be bothered to get a professional translation of the plan that was handed to them by the Kremlin .

    Rubio can say what ever he likes now . No one’s believing his denials .

    It's insane that the USA is presenting Russia's plan and pretending they wrote it.

    Short of adding a "We Love Vladimir Putin Day" to the Ukrainian calendar it could scarcely be more obvious.

    Europe (including us) has to provide Ukraine with diplomatic and other support. Or this rigmarole will recur in a few years down the line.
    Mr Witkoff appears to have somewhat over-extended himself, and has been totally played by the Russians. Not a good look at all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
    It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.

    Commons average age - 49.
    Lords average age - 71
    The Commons are wanting to bump off their elderly relatives, the Lords not so keen to be bumped off?
    I would say, rather, that it is of less personal immediacy to the Commons. How many healthy people under sixty spend much time thinking about how, when and where their life will end? And it's much easier to say/imagine what other people should do than apply it to yourself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Sandpit said:

    nico67 said:

    So the 28 point peace plan has imploded already !

    The US administration are so thick they couldn’t even be bothered to get a professional translation of the plan that was handed to them by the Kremlin .

    Rubio can say what ever he likes now . No one’s believing his denials .

    It's insane that the USA is presenting Russia's plan and pretending they wrote it.

    Short of adding a "We Love Vladimir Putin Day" to the Ukrainian calendar it could scarcely be more obvious.

    Europe (including us) has to provide Ukraine with diplomatic and other support. Or this rigmarole will recur in a few years down the line.
    Mr Witkoff appears to have somewhat over-extended himself, and has been totally played by the Russians. Not a good look at all.
    And Trump has been completely played by Witkoff and Putin.

    Which is also not a good look but is also in no way unusual given his obvious lack of mental grip.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,361
    Las Vegas GP late news !!!!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,361
    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Pulpstar said:

    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..

    Norris would trail Norris?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Pulpstar said:

    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..

    Two Grands Prix and a sprint means 58 points on the table. Still advantage Norris, but Verstappen's a lot closer than he would've liked. If the DSQs ever come through.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..

    Norris would trail Norris?
    But only by 24 points - so Norris is in with a chance.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    edited 8:36AM
    Pulpstar said:

    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..

    So we would have a title race that unless Norris wins with both Vercrashem and Piastri not scoring would go to the last race.

    Hmmmmmm...

    Wonder whether technical failures were the only thing on the panel's mind?

    Reminds me of the time Schumacher and Irvine were disqualified in Malaysia (in 2000, I think) for their barge boards being incorrectly sized and hurriedly reinstated so that Mika Hakkinen wouldn't be champion with a race left to run.

    Edit - it was in 1999, but the right sort of idea.
  • TazTaz Posts: 22,502
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
    It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.

    Commons average age - 49.
    Lords average age - 71
    The Commons are wanting to bump off their elderly relatives, the Lords not so keen to be bumped off?
    Don’t want their inheritance taken up with cost of care.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,361
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..

    Norris would trail Norris?
    According to the independent


  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,872
    Fascinating read, thank you Sean F.

    A couple of points:

    Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.

    Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:

    “In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”

    By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    At risk of annoying TSE:

    It is pretty impressive that Verstappen has managed such a chronically uncompetitive car to still be in contention for the WDC with two races to go.

    From that point of view, he does resemble Michael Schumacher.

    And in other ways also, it has to be said...
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,985
    Sandpit said:

    nico67 said:

    So the 28 point peace plan has imploded already !

    The US administration are so thick they couldn’t even be bothered to get a professional translation of the plan that was handed to them by the Kremlin .

    Rubio can say what ever he likes now . No one’s believing his denials .

    It's insane that the USA is presenting Russia's plan and pretending they wrote it.

    Short of adding a "We Love Vladimir Putin Day" to the Ukrainian calendar it could scarcely be more obvious.

    Europe (including us) has to provide Ukraine with diplomatic and other support. Or this rigmarole will recur in a few years down the line.
    Mr Witkoff appears to have somewhat over-extended himself, and has been totally played by the Russians. Not a good look at all.
    So it’s not just the Russians that use canon fodder. Witkoff gone soon?

    As an aside just recovering an old hard drive and found a campaign leaflet from No2ID from 2011.! Seems the same stuff comes round regularly
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    ydoethur said:

    At risk of annoying TSE:

    It is pretty impressive that Verstappen has managed such a chronically uncompetitive car to still be in contention for the WDC with two races to go.

    From that point of view, he does resemble Michael Schumacher.

    And in other ways also, it has to be said...

    The Red Bull has improved tremendously over the course of the season. Verstappen has driven very very well, but the car improvement should not be underestimated.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..

    Norris would trail Norris?
    According to the independent


    So he still has two chances in three of winning the championship.

    Or might even win and be runner up.

    No wonder Piastri is complaining about favouritism.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,202
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..

    Not sure about that..

    Norris would trail Norris?
    Doesn't want to get ahead of himself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140

    ydoethur said:

    At risk of annoying TSE:

    It is pretty impressive that Verstappen has managed such a chronically uncompetitive car to still be in contention for the WDC with two races to go.

    From that point of view, he does resemble Michael Schumacher.

    And in other ways also, it has to be said...

    The Red Bull has improved tremendously over the course of the season. Verstappen has driven very very well, but the car improvement should not be underestimated.
    Tsunoda and Lawson are waving hello.

    But because they're a very long way back, you may not see them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992
    algarkirk said:

    Fascinating read, thank you Sean F.

    A couple of points:

    Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.

    Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:

    “In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”

    By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.


    There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.

    The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
    It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.

    Commons average age - 49.
    Lords average age - 71
    The Commons are wanting to bump off their elderly relatives, the Lords not so keen to be bumped off?
    A legacy is sweet, and passing sweet, the unexpected death of some old lady.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992
    AnneJGP said:

    That's a cracking article, @Sean_F and I'm so sorry I need to go out even before reading it properly. But thank you & I look forward to reading it later today. You'll probably be on the next thread by then.

    Have a good day, everyone.

    Thank you.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,907
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
    It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.

    Commons average age - 49.
    Lords average age - 71
    The Commons are wanting to bump off their elderly relatives, the Lords not so keen to be bumped off?
    2 different topics.
    The HoL needs to be bumped off, a sensible democratically elected second chamber should replace it. It might lose some positive attributes but it's an affront to democracy.

    On assisted dying, I thought, I suspect wrongly, that quality of life rather than life at all cost, was an NHS tenet. Hence QALYs as a measurement.
    There are some lucky enough to have a healthy old age, but others are in pain, discomfort or in a distressing fog of dementia. The lucky ones, (out of misplaced fear?), seems to want to deny those in pain but still cognitive to end their life in dignity and comfort.
    There'll still be 1000s of confused, unhappy old people with dementia sat in their soiled clothing that they refuse to let their carers change, sleeping their life away in bed or in the TV lounge while their lucky contemporaries ignore them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992

    Great header, agreed 100%. We either fight Russia in Ukraine or we fight them closer to home. We also need to start a reckoning with various Russian assets and useful idiots here in the UK. Nigel Farage and Reform certainly sit in one of those categories.

    Thank you. The Russian outlook is that everywhere that was once ruled by Russia is theirs.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,057
    algarkirk said:

    Fascinating read, thank you Sean F.

    A couple of points:

    Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.

    Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:

    “In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”

    By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.

    The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.

    The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.

    It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523
    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    Fascinating read, thank you Sean F.

    A couple of points:

    Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.

    Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:

    “In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”

    By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.


    There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.

    The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
    A lesson that has mostly been forgotten in Europe after eight decades of peace - until a war unexpectedly turns up next door.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,635
    Today's most measured analysis.

    Hahahahhaha. This administration can’t tell if their plan is Russian or American. Like watching two monkeys F a football bat
    https://x.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1992428446233120813
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Sean_F said:

    Great header, agreed 100%. We either fight Russia in Ukraine or we fight them closer to home. We also need to start a reckoning with various Russian assets and useful idiots here in the UK. Nigel Farage and Reform certainly sit in one of those categories.

    Thank you. The Russian outlook is that everywhere that was once ruled by Russia is theirs.
    Which includes, of course, large chunks of the EU (and not just the Baltic States).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992

    Also, good header.

    I do think there's some value in the softened by luxury line, though. It applies to much of Europe. We've got to take a lead here.

    Thank you. Yes, there is some truth in it. But, ancient and modern writers have given the idea far more merit than it deserves.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992
    Nigelb said:

    Herodotus isn't so much a historian, as the original unreliable narrator.

    TBF, he does start off by saying "I am reporting what I was told,. I do not have to believe it." Darius' usurpation of the Persian throne is an excellent example of this, where plainly, he was in contact with some eminent Persian, who gave him the official history (that Darius overthrew an impostor), when we know that the truth was different.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Sean_F said:

    Also, good header.

    I do think there's some value in the softened by luxury line, though. It applies to much of Europe. We've got to take a lead here.

    Thank you. Yes, there is some truth in it. But, ancient and modern writers have given the idea far more merit than it deserves.
    I think part of that is the reverse-rationalisation that often happens, with an assumed and rapidly formed or pre-existing opinion which is then rationalised, rather than viewing evidence then reaching a conclusion.

    Considering the Roman Empire, especially the East, suggests very prolonged prosperity is entirely possible.

    Half hour vid approximately on this, mostly arguing against Elon Musk's take on population decline leading to Roman fall:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7IeupZYII
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992

    Thank you Sean.

    Thank you for publishing it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,523
    How mad will Charles Leclerc be with his team, when he finds out he missed a podium finish by 0.19 seconds because Antonelli ahead had a time penalty to serve?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,976
    Brilliant piece, Sean.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,140
    Sandpit said:

    How mad will Charles Leclerc be with his team, when he finds out he missed a podium finish by 0.19 seconds because Antonelli ahead had a time penalty to serve?

    He must be used to it by now. How many victories and points have they lost for him over the years through quite extraordinary incompetence?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,740
    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    Fascinating read, thank you Sean F.

    A couple of points:

    Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.

    Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:

    “In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”

    By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.


    There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.

    The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
    Though the mithering in the west is a step back from that.

    We're mostly not being asked to throw ourselves onto the battlefield, just to stump up the cash to produce the machines for the Ukrainians to use.

    We've been reluctant to do that for a while. Alan Clark's Diaries note how his Defence Review was the only way John Major was going to be able to afford tax cuts.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992
    @Cicero Russia does have a remarkable ability to corrupt, and sow division among, its opponents.

    @Stuartinromford I think if you drew a venn diagram, of Russia supporters, wehmarbros, and proponents of the Lost Cause, you'd find a massive overlap. In every case, they are glorifying losers who they think ought to have won.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,683
    A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.

    It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183
    Sandpit said:

    How mad will Charles Leclerc be with his team, when he finds out he missed a podium finish by 0.19 seconds because Antonelli ahead had a time penalty to serve?

    Was he told of the penalty? If not, well, that's Ferrari. I'm sure Elkann will be on hand to tell him to stop airing views and be better.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,466
    edited 9:00AM
    Excellent header, not only because I agree with it.

    Lots to think about. If there is a "Decline and Fall" here it would seem to apply to the USA and not Russia, which has never had anything to decline and fall from.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,466
    This guy thinks the 28 point plan is a plot by JD Vance. No idea, but it fits the facts, and is plausible.

    https://bsky.app/profile/chriso-wiki.bsky.social/post/3m6ajfcgewm2y
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,683
    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Revising a bill which leads to assisted dying of the elderly and terminally ill to ensure it is watertight is their job
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,872
    edited 9:06AM
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    Gosh indeed. Betfair's already altered the title odds, alas, but I'm greener on Verstappen than Norris anyway.

    I'll have to check the Ladbrokes market to see if Russell ends up settled as a winner.
    With the McLarens excluded Russell will be 2nd and Antonelli 3rd. The question is do they settle on the provisional result or the final result?
    Ladbrokes settles on the podium positions. I expect all bookmakers are the same. (Edited to fix typo.)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,303
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
    Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
    Probably not, though.

    There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.

    That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
    That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.

    Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
    Taz , It should be simple, if someone wants to die and their are some safeguards that they are not being coerced then they should be able to make their own decision.
    Currently where some do gooders ensure you can spend years in pain etc jsut because they believe in some crap is shocking. They are desperate to make sur eanimals don't have to suffer pain , yet happy for humans to suffer based on some whacko mumbo jumbo.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,012
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

    The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

    Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

    Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

    Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

    More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.





    Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

    I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

    The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
    It’s a private members bill and while the cause is honorable it’s not something to fight over because it’s not Government policy.

    Also you can’t criticize the House of Lirds for adding amendments to improve a bill - that’s their job
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,992
    HYUFD said:

    A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.

    It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out

    The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.

    All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,112
    Nigelb said:

    Cicero said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.

    What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting.
    Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.

    It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.

    We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia.
    And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.

    Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies.
    And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.

    King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619

    From the senate press conference:

    SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions
    : "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff..

    https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1992364072860582183

    And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:

    This is blatantly false. *

    As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.

    https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236

    *It clearly isn't blatantly false.
    Trying to force a deal is blowing up in their faces. They will have to back off. The damage this is doing *to the US* is increasingly serious.
    Putting a fool (Witkoff) and an amoral seeker after billion dollar deals with dodgy regimes (Kushner) in charge of negotiating foreign policy, on the basis of one being an old real estate crony, and the other family, was never going to turn out well,

    And having a VP and his coterie who are, for whatever reason, virulently anti-Ukraine (and NATO), with the ear of an ageing president with limited attention span, means that these attempts to sell out Europe will crop up regularly.

    This one is just the most blatant.
    Kushner was there when the US recently sold out Western Sahara to Morocco.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,183

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Both McLaren cars are about to be disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix, for scrutineering failures. Underside skid below legal limit.

    https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_las_vegas_grand_prix_-_skid_wear_of_car_numbers_81_and_04.pdf

    Gosh indeed. Betfair's already altered the title odds, alas, but I'm greener on Verstappen than Norris anyway.

    I'll have to check the Ladbrokes market to see if Russell ends up settled as a winner.
    With the McLarens excluded Russell will be 2nd and Antonelli 3rd. The question is do they settle on the provisional result or the final result?
    Ladbrokes settles on the podium positions. I expect all bookmakers are the same. (Edited to fix typo.)
    While irksome, thanks for that clarification.

    Still, the double DSQ would be a marginal improvement for my title betting.
Sign In or Register to comment.