Matt Gurney: 'We will never fucking trust you again' Some blunt talk for our American neighbours at the Halifax International Security Forum. https://www.readtheline.ca/p/matt-gurney-we-will-never-fucking ..The forum is an annual gathering of senior military officers, defence and intelligence officials from across the free world, and representatives from the media, think tanks, large companies and civil society organizations whose work relates to defence and security issues or in some way seeks to promote and preserve a healthy democratic world. Funded by NATO, the Canadian government and private-sector sponsors, the event is a major part of Canada’s “soft power” offering to our allies — we host the big party and show everybody a good time. The actual schedule is split between on-the-record panel talks or presentations, off-the-record sessions, and informal time for mingling and schmoozing. I am grateful to have been invited to participate again this year.
Especially this year. I’ve been going to the forum for years, and the event always had a strongly American flavour.
Not anymore! Yankee went home.
Like, literally. He was ordered to go home, or stay there. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to avoid a series of high-profile annual defence summits. That includes Halifax, and others in places like Munich and Singapore, and even inside the United States itself. The reason, according to the Pentagon’s press apparatus, was that, and I swear to God this is the actual quote, such events promote “the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country and hatred for the president of the United States.”
Oh. Well, then...
..Let me be clear about one thing: there were indeed a great many Americans at the forum in Halifax. I don’t want to suggest otherwise. There was a large Congressional Delegation, or a “CODEL,” present at the forum, as there is every year. If anything, I think this year had an unusually large CODEL. And it was a bipartisan one, too. But I noticed something interesting. They were all senators. No House reps. I can’t help but suspect that’s because they’re either planning to retire (some have said already they will) or because the longer six-year term afforded senators gives them some ability to withstand White House anger that House reps, with two-year terms, don’t have.
There were plenty of other Americans from private companies, think tanks, academia, and many former and retired U.S. government officials. And I’m going to be extremely careful in how I describe this: I have a pretty good hunch that some U.S. military officers were indeed in attendance, because — gosh! what a coincidence! — they just happened to be in Halifax on vacation at the exact same time the forum was taking place...
..I was glad to see these Americans and had many fascinating chats with them. But I have to tell you all, dear readers, that the lack of official U.S. military and government representation was very obvious. And those brave Americans who did attend did not have an easy time...
...I worry that I might have been a bit brash with my American dining companions that night. (If any of them are reading this and if I was, sorry. Lot goin’ on over here.) But before I could worry about it too much, a senior military officer from a major (non-American) allied nation drove a stake right through the heart of the matter.
America has blown 80 years of accumulated goodwill and trust among its allies, our American moderator was told. A rock-steady assumption of allied defence and security planning for literally generations has been that America would act in its own interests, sure, but that those interests would be rational, and would still generally value the institutions that America itself worked so hard to build after the Second World War. America’s recent actions have destroyed the ability of any ally to continue to have faith in America to act even within its own strategic self-interest, let alone that of any ally.
The officer then said that even a swift return of America to its former role won’t matter.
Because “we will never fucking trust you again.”
The Americans at the table seemed somewhat startled by the heat of that pronouncement. I agreed with it entirely. So, it seemed to me, did most of the non-Americans.
This wasn’t the only such moment at the forum this year, but it was, to me, the most interesting. And it was still being talked about the next day. “Thank God,” one allied official said to me. “Someone had to tell them.”
If there’s one thing I think people should take from my visit to Halifax, it’s that. America’s former role is gone. And I think that Americans themselves are having the hardest time of all coming to terms with what that might actually mean in the long run.
So - what are we going to do about it?
As far as I can tell the non-American West is still hoping they will wake up and find that this nightmare is over, and that things can go back to how they were before. I don't see much evidence of countries acting on an irrevocable loss of trust in the US.
I was disappointed that Zelenskyy's visit was not seized upon as an opportunity to address this. Instead, we had our PM embarrassing himself by fawning towards Trump about how hard he had worked for peace.
This kind of delusional fantasy cannot really go on, at least not without serious risks. Europe and Canada need to do some serious work to think about what comes next. I don't think @Gardenwalker's proposal is the solution but there is a lot of work to do. And it will be really important to bring home to the US that there are consequences of electing buffoons like Trump who appoint morons like Hegseth and RFK.
I have some sympathy for that POV but, frankly, for the moment trying to keep Trump onside is the priority - for the sake of Ukraine.
I don't suppose Sir Keir likes "fawning" over Trump but a PM has to do what a PM has to do. I give him credit for that.
Perhaps the real problem is the lack of decent political leaders.
The only type-of-person who could tell Trump straight would be someone of unquestionable integrity and clarity of purpose, and with right-wing kudos to boot. Mrs Thatcher is about the only European leader of recent years I can think of who would have fitted the bill.
Whilst I agree with you, I feel this is now at the point that we were with Macron and Putin. Macron was getting loads of criticism for talking to Putin every day and trying to get a negotiated resolution at the start of the most recent invasion. It failed but he was right to try. Eventually he accepted that failure and moved on to more practical assitance.
As controversial as it might sound to some I think we are at that stage now with Trump. We have all the evidence we could ever need that he is no longer our friend and ally and we need to stop trying to negotiate or pander to him and get on with the new world order where the US has, for now, sided with our enemy.
We like to say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It also works the other way around.
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
For now, under Trump, the US is as good as our enemy.
I think there is also a need to be open about this, to explain to the public how seismic the change is, and therefore that we need to take a correspondingly large amount of action in response.
This is why I do think it is fair to criticise Starmer on this. His Trump-appeasement policy has failed, and is seen to have failed. And he has been one of the European leaders most reluctant to increase defence spending in response to the new reality.
The public need to be levelled with.
Agreed. As I said I think we are now past the point where Macron realised talking to Putin was counterprodctive.
"COVID schemes' fraud and error cost taxpayers £11bn
Fraud and error in pandemic support programmes like furlough and Eat Out to Help Out cost taxpayers enough to fund free school meals for 2.7 million eligible children for eight years."
I think furlough was probably still worth doing even though it was obvious at the time that there was massive scope for fraud. I have, and had at the time, grave doubts about the wisdom of EOTHO.
EOTHO total cost was £0.8bn. Even if a quarter of it were fraudulent it would be a rounding error in the covid fraud figure. It is only included in the journalist reporting for clickbait, which obviously works.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
That's a good point. I spent most of my evenings as a teenager chatting with friends while playing COD. Is that now banned too?
In Australia it's even more pronounced - a massive urban population, and a small minority of children living sometimes days away from their peers. I guess they have school hostels like the Hebrides?
No idea. I am not clear on the scope of then new laws. Do they include Discord? Or the chat forums for online games?
Would a children friendly equivalent of PB have to ban under 16s from the chat?
If email isn't banned then I can see list servers coming out of retirement.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
I think you'd be surprised. Parents around me are never idle at the weekend, taking kids to various football and swimming competitions, even if its a long drive away. Through the week theres loads of after school stuff on, mainly sports. At this time of year you also have a lot of Christmas fairs. The covid years knocked a dent in socialising, thankfully it has repaired a lot now.
I cant say the same for adult activities in rural areas. There isn't the same community feel in local villages as the 90s/2000s, people live more like individuals. There are a lot of retirees around my area, looking for a quiet life who don't socialise as much. demographically it is a time bomb which will lead to more pressure on services
In some respects covid put rocket boosters on the ongoing social issues affecting remote and rural parts of Scotland. I did think when everyone started working from home it would stay like that - it hasn't stayed in the same work model at all
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
Yes, I'd had similar thoughts and am very unsure about the wisdom of an outright ban. But we should at least learn something from it, and that will hopefully help us in the development of policy regarding social media consumption by children in the future.
Plain email seems not to be banned? Or do I misread?
No it is not included but even in the UK, children in rural communities rely upon social media for social contacts. When most of your friends live many miles away (my son's school was 9 miles away) then it becomes an important tool for avoiding isolation.
But how did they survive before social media (ie before about 2007)?
They were lonely.
Don't get me wrong. In the UK it is not vast numbers of children but we have now changed their social interactions far more than I think most adults realise. If you are in a town or city it is not a big deal. If you are in a rural area then you are back to the way it was when I was a kid. You saw friends at school and if you were lucky at the weekend. It did result in a lot of social isolation for those kids attending town schools but living a long way away who missed out.
Whatever they do the Chinese will just outbuild them at a rate of 10:1 so it's politically better for the USN to trade on the promise of future and possibly illusory game-changers like USVs, AI, hypersonic bollocks, etc. than wasting capital building ships that'll be outnumbered soon anyway.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
Yes, I'd had similar thoughts and am very unsure about the wisdom of an outright ban. But we should at least learn something from it, and that will hopefully help us in the development of policy regarding social media consumption by children in the future.
Plain email seems not to be banned? Or do I misread?
No it is not included but even in the UK, children in rural communities rely upon social media for social contacts. When most of your friends live many miles away (my son's school was 9 miles away) then it becomes an important tool for avoiding isolation.
But how did they survive before social media (ie before about 2007)?
Oh and good article. Not suire I agree with all of it but a well researched and thoughful read.
Matt Gurney: 'We will never fucking trust you again' Some blunt talk for our American neighbours at the Halifax International Security Forum. https://www.readtheline.ca/p/matt-gurney-we-will-never-fucking ..The forum is an annual gathering of senior military officers, defence and intelligence officials from across the free world, and representatives from the media, think tanks, large companies and civil society organizations whose work relates to defence and security issues or in some way seeks to promote and preserve a healthy democratic world. Funded by NATO, the Canadian government and private-sector sponsors, the event is a major part of Canada’s “soft power” offering to our allies — we host the big party and show everybody a good time. The actual schedule is split between on-the-record panel talks or presentations, off-the-record sessions, and informal time for mingling and schmoozing. I am grateful to have been invited to participate again this year.
Especially this year. I’ve been going to the forum for years, and the event always had a strongly American flavour.
Not anymore! Yankee went home.
Like, literally. He was ordered to go home, or stay there. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to avoid a series of high-profile annual defence summits. That includes Halifax, and others in places like Munich and Singapore, and even inside the United States itself. The reason, according to the Pentagon’s press apparatus, was that, and I swear to God this is the actual quote, such events promote “the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country and hatred for the president of the United States.”
Oh. Well, then...
..Let me be clear about one thing: there were indeed a great many Americans at the forum in Halifax. I don’t want to suggest otherwise. There was a large Congressional Delegation, or a “CODEL,” present at the forum, as there is every year. If anything, I think this year had an unusually large CODEL. And it was a bipartisan one, too. But I noticed something interesting. They were all senators. No House reps. I can’t help but suspect that’s because they’re either planning to retire (some have said already they will) or because the longer six-year term afforded senators gives them some ability to withstand White House anger that House reps, with two-year terms, don’t have.
There were plenty of other Americans from private companies, think tanks, academia, and many former and retired U.S. government officials. And I’m going to be extremely careful in how I describe this: I have a pretty good hunch that some U.S. military officers were indeed in attendance, because — gosh! what a coincidence! — they just happened to be in Halifax on vacation at the exact same time the forum was taking place...
..I was glad to see these Americans and had many fascinating chats with them. But I have to tell you all, dear readers, that the lack of official U.S. military and government representation was very obvious. And those brave Americans who did attend did not have an easy time...
...I worry that I might have been a bit brash with my American dining companions that night. (If any of them are reading this and if I was, sorry. Lot goin’ on over here.) But before I could worry about it too much, a senior military officer from a major (non-American) allied nation drove a stake right through the heart of the matter.
America has blown 80 years of accumulated goodwill and trust among its allies, our American moderator was told. A rock-steady assumption of allied defence and security planning for literally generations has been that America would act in its own interests, sure, but that those interests would be rational, and would still generally value the institutions that America itself worked so hard to build after the Second World War. America’s recent actions have destroyed the ability of any ally to continue to have faith in America to act even within its own strategic self-interest, let alone that of any ally.
The officer then said that even a swift return of America to its former role won’t matter.
Because “we will never fucking trust you again.”
The Americans at the table seemed somewhat startled by the heat of that pronouncement. I agreed with it entirely. So, it seemed to me, did most of the non-Americans.
This wasn’t the only such moment at the forum this year, but it was, to me, the most interesting. And it was still being talked about the next day. “Thank God,” one allied official said to me. “Someone had to tell them.”
If there’s one thing I think people should take from my visit to Halifax, it’s that. America’s former role is gone. And I think that Americans themselves are having the hardest time of all coming to terms with what that might actually mean in the long run.
So - what are we going to do about it?
As far as I can tell the non-American West is still hoping they will wake up and find that this nightmare is over, and that things can go back to how they were before. I don't see much evidence of countries acting on an irrevocable loss of trust in the US.
I was disappointed that Zelenskyy's visit was not seized upon as an opportunity to address this. Instead, we had our PM embarrassing himself by fawning towards Trump about how hard he had worked for peace.
This kind of delusional fantasy cannot really go on, at least not without serious risks. Europe and Canada need to do some serious work to think about what comes next. I don't think @Gardenwalker's proposal is the solution but there is a lot of work to do. And it will be really important to bring home to the US that there are consequences of electing buffoons like Trump who appoint morons like Hegseth and RFK.
I have some sympathy for that POV but, frankly, for the moment trying to keep Trump onside is the priority - for the sake of Ukraine.
I don't suppose Sir Keir likes "fawning" over Trump but a PM has to do what a PM has to do. I give him credit for that.
Perhaps the real problem is the lack of decent political leaders.
The only type-of-person who could tell Trump straight would be someone of unquestionable integrity and clarity of purpose, and with right-wing kudos to boot. Mrs Thatcher is about the only European leader of recent years I can think of who would have fitted the bill.
Whilst I agree with you, I feel this is now at the point that we were with Macron and Putin. Macron was getting loads of criticism for talking to Putin every day and trying to get a negotiated resolution at the start of the most recent invasion. It failed but he was right to try. Eventually he accepted that failure and moved on to more practical assitance.
As controversial as it might sound to some I think we are at that stage now with Trump. We have all the evidence we could ever need that he is no longer our friend and ally and we need to stop trying to negotiate or pander to him and get on with the new world order where the US has, for now, sided with our enemy.
We like to say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It also works the other way around.
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
For now, under Trump, the US is as good as our enemy.
I think there is also a need to be open about this, to explain to the public how seismic the change is, and therefore that we need to take a correspondingly large amount of action in response.
This is why I do think it is fair to criticise Starmer on this. His Trump-appeasement policy has failed, and is seen to have failed. And he has been one of the European leaders most reluctant to increase defence spending in response to the new reality.
The public need to be levelled with.
Trump is incredibly fickle, as seen in his tariff policy.
He’s just licensed Nvidia to sell their H200 AI chips to China, a move which is frustrating analysts who believe it surrenders one of the few tech leads still enjoyed by the US.
Too early therefore to say Starmer has “failed”. Need to keep jaw-jawing while being determined about shoring up British defence and improving sovereign autonomy.
On the latter point, for example, the UK needs its own chip manufacturing capacity. This is extremely challenging to do alone, given the scale of investment required.
I therefore refer you back to the Anglo-Canada partnership. Other alliances and partnerships are possible of course, but all are vulnerable to disruption in extremis: see the drugs dispute with the EU during Covid for example.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
Yes, I'd had similar thoughts and am very unsure about the wisdom of an outright ban. But we should at least learn something from it, and that will hopefully help us in the development of policy regarding social media consumption by children in the future.
Plain email seems not to be banned? Or do I misread?
No it is not included but even in the UK, children in rural communities rely upon social media for social contacts. When most of your friends live many miles away (my son's school was 9 miles away) then it becomes an important tool for avoiding isolation.
But how did they survive before social media (ie before about 2007)?
They were lonely.
Don't get me wrong. In the UK it is not vast numbers of children but we have now changed their social interactions far more than I think most adults realise. If you are in a town or city it is not a big deal. If you are in a rural area then you are back to the way it was when I was a kid. You saw friends at school and if you were lucky at the weekend. It did result in a lot of social isolation for those kids attending town schools but living a long way away who missed out.
Hmm. There's another difference, though - the telephone. Used as a voice system in Alexander Graham Bell mode. In the old days it was in the hallway and one's mum might be on it, etc. Now ... And of course you have text messages so the deaf can use them.
"COVID schemes' fraud and error cost taxpayers £11bn
Fraud and error in pandemic support programmes like furlough and Eat Out to Help Out cost taxpayers enough to fund free school meals for 2.7 million eligible children for eight years."
I think furlough was probably still worth doing even though it was obvious at the time that there was massive scope for fraud. I have, and had at the time, grave doubts about the wisdom of EOTHO.
EOTHO total cost was £0.8bn. Even if a quarter of it were fraudulent it would be a rounding error in the covid fraud figure. It is only included in the journalist reporting for clickbait, which obviously works.
Fair enough. To be honest, my doubts about EOTHO were more based on its potential for spreading infection than its cost. It seemed crazy that we were prepared to take the drastic measure of closing schools to reduce the spread of covid, only to then do something as ridiculously conterproductive as encouraging people to visit restaurants, thereby increasing the likelihood of having to close schools again!
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
Yes, I'd had similar thoughts and am very unsure about the wisdom of an outright ban. But we should at least learn something from it, and that will hopefully help us in the development of policy regarding social media consumption by children in the future.
Plain email seems not to be banned? Or do I misread?
No it is not included but even in the UK, children in rural communities rely upon social media for social contacts. When most of your friends live many miles away (my son's school was 9 miles away) then it becomes an important tool for avoiding isolation.
But how did they survive before social media (ie before about 2007)?
Oh and good article. Not suire I agree with all of it but a well researched and thoughful read.
"COVID schemes' fraud and error cost taxpayers £11bn
Fraud and error in pandemic support programmes like furlough and Eat Out to Help Out cost taxpayers enough to fund free school meals for 2.7 million eligible children for eight years."
I think furlough was probably still worth doing even though it was obvious at the time that there was massive scope for fraud. I have, and had at the time, grave doubts about the wisdom of EOTHO.
EOTHO total cost was £0.8bn. Even if a quarter of it were fraudulent it would be a rounding error in the covid fraud figure. It is only included in the journalist reporting for clickbait, which obviously works.
Fair enough. To be honest, my doubts about EOTHO were more based on its potential for spreading infection than its cost. It seemed crazy that we were prepared to take the drastic measure of closing schools to reduce the spread of covid, only to then do something as ridiculously conterproductive as encouraging people to visit restaurants, thereby increasing the likelihood of having to close schools again!
It would have been a smart idea, had the pandemic been properly over, as part of Operation Back To Normal. Doing EOTHO in Summer 2020 was like celebrating victory in the Battle of Britain with a massive firework party.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I think we should be introducing this in the UK as soon as possible.
Whilst well written, and organised into paragraphs of a digestible length, I find the whole basis of this header rather silly. And its silliness feeds equally into the Brexit argument. Rather like a person seeking a relationship to fix them, this is another outside solution to an inside job. Britain (and possibly Canada too, I wouldn't know) has serious issues - a porous border, massive social welfare spending, top-heavy demographics, an unproductive and ideologically driven administrative class, the highest energy costs in the developed world, and underpinning all this, a fundamentally ungovernable system of quangos and courts, that make building, investing, and growing a business in Britain almost impossible. Why don't we deal with some of those things (preferably all of them) and then take score, rather than desparately seeking international partnerships as some sort of sticking plaster?
Your finding something silly is faint condemnation indeed.
I also find you rather silly, but unlike this thread, I think it's somewhat beyond my skills to suggest a remedy.
Remember when the late Fiona Jones was prosecuted for having overspent by miles on her election expenses. It went to trial and she was found not guilty. Not because she hadn't overspent but because the court accepted the claim of herself and her election agent Des Whicher that the rules were too complicated to understand.
I lost a lot of my faith in the system at that point. Imagine any other case where, as the sole person to be prosecuted out of 650, you can get off with it because you claim the law is too complicated.
Moreover she was allowed to take her seat even after it being proved she had overspent.
She was in my neighbouring office and I got to know her quite well - a dynamic woman and good fun though not uncontroversial. Her life took a very sad turn for the worse later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Jones gives the details, which are more ambiguous than Richard recalls. I'd forgotten I was the runner-up to her selection (I was living and working in Switzerland at the time) and vaguely recall hearing later of very sharp party divisions.
The near miss gave me crediibility in the subsequent selection for nearby Broxtowe, so in that first post-1997 Parliament when she returned we were both happy - I was much more suited to suburban Broxtowe than the wilds of Newark constituency. If I'd known of her troubles later I'd certainly have tried to help.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I think we should be introducing this in the UK as soon as possible.
I'd suggest introducing it in the UK but waiting til we learn some valuable lessons from the Aussies first. It is a good idea but definitely tricky to legislate on.
Remember when the late Fiona Jones was prosecuted for having overspent by miles on her election expenses. It went to trial and she was found not guilty. Not because she hadn't overspent but because the court accepted the claim of herself and her election agent Des Whicher that the rules were too complicated to understand.
I lost a lot of my faith in the system at that point. Imagine any other case where, as the sole person to be prosecuted out of 650, you can get off with it because you claim the law is too complicated.
Moreover she was allowed to take her seat even after it being proved she had overspent.
She was in my neighbouring office and I got to know her quite well - a dynamic woman and good fun though not uncontroversial. Her life took a very sad turn for the worse later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Jones gives the details, which are more ambiguous than Richard recalls. I'd forgotten I was the runner-up to her selection (I was living and working in Switzerland at the time) and vaguely recall hearing later of very sharp party divisions.
The near miss gave me crediibility in the subsequent selection for nearby Broxtowe, so in that first post-1997 Parliament when she returned we were both happy - I was much more suited to suburban Broxtowe than the wilds of Newark constituency. If I'd known of her troubles later I'd certainly have tried to help.
Perhaps more surprisingly, nor was 2000 Miles by the Pretenders. It was about the drugs death of band member, James Honeyman-Scott in June 1982.
When you look at the lyrics, they're not actually saying it is Christmas but rather that the icy feeling and singing at his funeral makes it feel like Christmas despite being as far from it as you can be.
Love the header essay. Almost as batshit, yet simultaneously interestingly plausible as the multiple times a British union with France was seriously proposed in the C20th.
(Honestly, we should have unified with France - it would have been worth it for the Franco-Anglo banter alone.)
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I think we should be introducing this in the UK as soon as possible.
I'd suggest introducing it in the UK but waiting til we learn some valuable lessons from the Aussies first. It is a good idea but definitely tricky to legislate on.
I agree it's worth waiting to get right.
I can't quite decide if this is the best approach or if we need a society-wide change in our thinking on the role of technology for children and teenagers.
The current social norm is the equivalent of letting 5 years carry round a bag of chocolates and sweets all day every day and wondering why there's been an increase in childhood obesity.
Being constantly online via smart phones is not good for childhood development and awful for mental health (at least at a population level). The period pre-2010 did not have the same kind of impact, where usage was more limited by technological constraints.
It's very hard for parents to go against social pressure. And most children will be fine. But as a society level the current setup is clearly very damaging.
"The Axa survey results imply that a third of all workers aged 16-24 are already thinking about retiring early due to ill-health. This is not the only survey to produce this result: a recent Lancaster University study found that 43 per cent of 16- to -24-year-olds in work thought their health was deteriorating and likely to push them out of work in future. What’s especially concerning is that these were surveys of people in work; Britain already has almost a million people aged 16-24 who are not in work or education, and more than a quarter cite ill health as the reason. This is a level of youth inactivity not seen since the global financial crisis, and there are clear signs it is going to get worse."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I think we should be introducing this in the UK as soon as possible.
FWIW I make it nearly a £5 trillion GDP (£4.72 trillion).
I think the USA National Security Strategy (TLDR: a written down version of Vance's Munich speech, approximately) embracing an authoritarian multi-polar world makes this an even more important area.
A fly-in-the-ointment may be just what will be left of the USA once the results of Trumpism have been absorbed, that is *if* the USA does not recover in some way.
I'm perhaps more inclined towards a "NATO sans the USA" as a next step, but there may not be political vision for that in the shorter term. Perhaps KC needs to bang some heads together.
I think we can keep NATO with the USA, but just with open eyes that we can not rely upon America so ensuring our own capabilities are operationally independent.
Co-operation, not reliance.
A problem with NATO sans USA, is leadership.
The US President is, by definition, "Leader of the Free World." That has become a grisly joke now.
But without the US who would provide the impetus and drive, and who would be the person with "the buck rests with me" on their desk?
Maybe the Secretary-General will have to be a far more political and consequential role with significant executive powers?
Nobody.
We don't need an international executive, we need each nation to hold its own executive to account.
Canada's PM, Britain's PM etc co-operating, not one individual bossing about others they've not been elected to serve.
The buck rests with our Prime Minister.
You need someone to cajole and coordinate and that needs to be someone from the leaders’ peer group
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
Yes, I'd had similar thoughts and am very unsure about the wisdom of an outright ban. But we should at least learn something from it, and that will hopefully help us in the development of policy regarding social media consumption by children in the future.
Plain email seems not to be banned? Or do I misread?
No it is not included but even in the UK, children in rural communities rely upon social media for social contacts. When most of your friends live many miles away (my son's school was 9 miles away) then it becomes an important tool for avoiding isolation.
But how did they survive before social media (ie before about 2007)?
I can still recall the good old days of arranging to meet people in the pub at 9 and just going there at 9. No need to constantly check where they are.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
Yes, I'd had similar thoughts and am very unsure about the wisdom of an outright ban. But we should at least learn something from it, and that will hopefully help us in the development of policy regarding social media consumption by children in the future.
Plain email seems not to be banned? Or do I misread?
No it is not included but even in the UK, children in rural communities rely upon social media for social contacts. When most of your friends live many miles away (my son's school was 9 miles away) then it becomes an important tool for avoiding isolation.
But how did they survive before social media (ie before about 2007)?
I can still recall the good old days of arranging to meet people in the pub at 9 and just going there at 9. No need to constantly check where they are.
Nowadays my wife and I both track each other on iPhone when we’re meeting to see where we are. It’s crazy. But we’re used to it.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it's a fascinating experiment, and it should provide some valuable data on the extent to which social media contributes to the various mental issues that seem so prevalent among children and young people nowadays.
I wonder about the effect on kids in isolated communities and farmsteads where their social life is entirely online.
Yes, I'd had similar thoughts and am very unsure about the wisdom of an outright ban. But we should at least learn something from it, and that will hopefully help us in the development of policy regarding social media consumption by children in the future.
Plain email seems not to be banned? Or do I misread?
No it is not included but even in the UK, children in rural communities rely upon social media for social contacts. When most of your friends live many miles away (my son's school was 9 miles away) then it becomes an important tool for avoiding isolation.
But how did they survive before social media (ie before about 2007)?
I can still recall the good old days of arranging to meet people in the pub at 9 and just going there at 9. No need to constantly check where they are.
Nowadays my wife and I both track each other on iPhone when we’re meeting to see where we are. It’s crazy. But we’re used to it.
Comments
I cant say the same for adult activities in rural areas. There isn't the same community feel in local villages as the 90s/2000s, people live more like individuals. There are a lot of retirees around my area, looking for a quiet life who don't socialise as much. demographically it is a time bomb which will lead to more pressure on services
In some respects covid put rocket boosters on the ongoing social issues affecting remote and rural parts of Scotland. I did think when everyone started working from home it would stay like that - it hasn't stayed in the same work model at all
Don't get me wrong. In the UK it is not vast numbers of children but we have now changed their social interactions far more than I think most adults realise. If you are in a town or city it is not a big deal. If you are in a rural area then you are back to the way it was when I was a kid. You saw friends at school and if you were lucky at the weekend. It did result in a lot of social isolation for those kids attending town schools but living a long way away who missed out.
He’s just licensed Nvidia to sell their H200 AI chips to China, a move which is frustrating analysts who believe it surrenders one of the few tech leads still enjoyed by the US.
Too early therefore to say Starmer has “failed”.
Need to keep jaw-jawing while being determined about shoring up British defence and improving sovereign autonomy.
On the latter point, for example, the UK needs its own chip manufacturing capacity. This is extremely challenging to do alone, given the scale of investment required.
I therefore refer you back to the Anglo-Canada partnership. Other alliances and partnerships are possible of course, but all are vulnerable to disruption in extremis: see the drugs dispute with the EU during Covid for example.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/15/stop-the-cavalry-how-we-made-interview-jona-lewie
The near miss gave me crediibility in the subsequent selection for nearby Broxtowe, so in that first post-1997 Parliament when she returned we were both happy - I was much more suited to suburban Broxtowe than the wilds of Newark constituency. If I'd known of her troubles later I'd certainly have tried to help.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/10/social-media-ban-australia-explained-banned-apps-list-guide
Of course. Being 16 is based on facial recognition.
When you look at the lyrics, they're not actually saying it is Christmas but rather that the icy feeling and singing at his funeral makes it feel like Christmas despite being as far from it as you can be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Blue_Jays
(Eventually, more than one, I would predict.)
Well that's interesting... the Lib Dems 10-minute rule bill to rejoin the customs union has just passed.
After a 100-100 tie the deputy speaker followed convention and cast the deciding vote in favour.
It won't get govt time so won't progress - but still a moment.
Cheers @Gardenwalker!
I can't quite decide if this is the best approach or if we need a society-wide change in our thinking on the role of technology for children and teenagers.
The current social norm is the equivalent of letting 5 years carry round a bag of chocolates and sweets all day every day and wondering why there's been an increase in childhood obesity.
Being constantly online via smart phones is not good for childhood development and awful for mental health (at least at a population level). The period pre-2010 did not have the same kind of impact, where usage was more limited by technological constraints.
It's very hard for parents to go against social pressure. And most children will be fine. But as a society level the current setup is clearly very damaging.
Nice pension.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/12/the-sick-youth-of-britain
A jolly Xmas song 👍
https://youtu.be/4D6_IhZA9Cg?si=mGkjask2j_u08dCV
NEW THREAD