Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
Don't listen to the doomsters. I've travelled a dozen or more times since the pandemic and never had a problem either going out or coming back. Too many good experiences for this to be a coincidence.
Where are you flying from and using which airline.
for instance Jet2 is perfectly fine at Manchester but other airlines using different suppliers are a complete mare because the Swissair (to name one of them) binned all their staff and have been unable to replace them...
Easyjet, BA, Ryanair, Ethiopian, TUI - all fine for us. Looking forward to Arizona golf trip in November (Heathrow with BA). We really went for it post-pandemic and have had the best summer ever.
Re this rapper chap who has been killed by the police - anyone hear any rumours about what was really going on? I've heard the car was flagged as being involved in a firearms incident and that the chap didn't stop, but nothing more.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
Yep. Like a few on here, I already had my spot planned out so the kids could see a bit of history. It would be impossible for me to get to London with the family at the moment so it is a big disappointment.
I think the royal train has been cancelled over fears of Leavers on the line.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Thinking about going up to London later this week to take a look and take some photos. Any tips on where to go other than in addition to Green Park / the Palace?
I'm not sure. You can walk around Westminster but there's not much to see at the moment as its all been cornered off.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
Don't listen to the doomsters. I've travelled a dozen or more times since the pandemic and never had a problem either going out or coming back. Too many good experiences for this to be a coincidence.
Stories about logjam to cross the channel, one weekend aside (and that was the start of the summer holidays), have been notable by their complete and utter absence.
The media will trawl dozens of traveller until they find one who has had a bad experience, interview them and imply that the whole system is fucked.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Thinking about going up to London later this week to take a look and take some photos. Any tips on where to go other than in addition to Green Park / the Palace?
The queue at the Palace was massive on Sunday - 2 hours.... Relatively few were going to the floral tribute area, and there is a lot more space there.
Where is the floral tribute area? Is that the same as the Green Park displays?
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
The quantity of flowers actually make me a little sad, for the missed opportunity. All that money spent, that could perhaps have been redirected to one or more of the charities the Queen supported. People should of course be free to mark her passing in any way they wish, but that's how I feel.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
Trouble is we all report the disasters, but not the good experiences. So I was on here complaining about the 1000 deep, 3 hour queue at Lisbon a few months ago, but didn't post about the seamless trip to and from Alicante a week ago.
Also my experience is coloured by travelling quite a bit during the pandemic which was a joy (other than the UK passenger location forms which were a real pain compared to the French and Portuguese ones). Travelling by plane, even if it goes well, is miserable anyway. Travelling by ferry or train (which I do if taking bikes) is much more pleasurable.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Thinking about going up to London later this week to take a look and take some photos. Any tips on where to go other than in addition to Green Park / the Palace?
The queue at the Palace was massive on Sunday - 2 hours.... Relatively few were going to the floral tribute area, and there is a lot more space there.
Where is the floral tribute area? Is that the same as the Green Park displays?
What is happening is that
1) People queue to see and place flowers at the Buckingham Palace gates. This can take a couple of hours. This is because there is a tightly controlled queue on Mall, and other access routes to the palace are closed. This in turn is to control the crowd - once at the Palace gates there is a fair bit of space to move around.
2) Each night, the staff remove the flowers (at least some) to the Floral Tribute in Green park (see pictures above). There is much more space there, and less people are going there than to the Palace. So yes, the Floral Tribute = The Green Park displays.
3) When the flowers at the floral tribute are dead, they are being removed to be composted.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interest, as there will be this week with the lying in state up to Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
I have dipped in and out for the bits of historical interest. But for me the most memorable bit of the whole thing, outside of the initial news, was the local Proclamations of Accession all around the country. I went to the Proclamations in Newark on Sunday and was very taken by the fact that this isn't something restricted to big pageantry events in London but is also something played out in every town and city across the country.
When the Proclamation of Accession was made in Newark, the Town Clerk stood upon an old wooden stool for the purpose. I didn't initially realise the significance of this but it turns out this same stool has been used to make the Proclamation for every new monarch since George IV in 1820.
On each occasion a brass plaque is affixed to the stool commemorating the event. Seven further monarchs since 1820 in addition George IV with a 9th now waiting to be added.
An amazing piece of local history.
Beautiful Royal stool.
Which miraculously can be polished it would appear.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
Ah, but redemption.
I thought the ending perfect.
I'm doing BOSCH at the moment since I have a free 30 day Amazon trial which I got for the US Open tennis.
15 days left to deal with the remaining 4 seasons. Tight.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Some of the coverage has been useful, historical, particularly from academics. It's mainly press articles that I've found the most interesting, though. I had no idea that the Queen came into political conflict with Tory governments in both 1973 and 1983, for instance. In 1973 she wanted to mention the economic crisis everyone was facing in her message, and in 1983 her broadcast about global inequality infiuriated Thatcher.
Beyond that I've kept tuning in the TV coverage from time to time as there are moments of genuine historical interest, as there will be this week with the lying in state up to Monday. The BBC and others have yet to get the overall balance of their coverage right, though, which I think has contributed to the slightly intolerant atmosphere seen yesterday.
I have dipped in and out for the bits of historical interest. But for me the most memorable bit of the whole thing, outside of the initial news, was the local Proclamations of Accession all around the country. I went to the Proclamations in Newark on Sunday and was very taken by the fact that this isn't something restricted to big pageantry events in London but is also something played out in every town and city across the country.
When the Proclamation of Accession was made in Newark, the Town Clerk stood upon an old wooden stool for the purpose. I didn't initially realise the significance of this but it turns out this same stool has been used to make the Proclamation for every new monarch since George IV in 1820.
On each occasion a brass plaque is affixed to the stool commemorating the event. Seven further monarchs since 1820 in addition George IV with a 9th now waiting to be added.
An amazing piece of local history.
Beautiful Royal stool.
Is the person charged with maintaining it the Groom of the Stool?
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
Thinking about going up to London later this week to take a look and take some photos. Any tips on where to go other than in addition to Green Park / the Palace?
I'm not sure. You can walk around Westminster but there's not much to see at the moment as its all been cornered off.
There's tons of Museums at South Kensington, which is a very short distance away, for instance. By the time you are working for hours, you can walk down to the river easily. London Eye is popular...
The main thing I would suggest is pre-booking timed tickets where you can. Since COVID, a number of attractions introduced free, but timed tickets. Which is an excellent way of reducing the pain of visiting.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
Don't listen to the doomsters. I've travelled a dozen or more times since the pandemic and never had a problem either going out or coming back. Too many good experiences for this to be a coincidence.
Where are you flying from and using which airline.
for instance Jet2 is perfectly fine at Manchester but other airlines using different suppliers are a complete mare because the Swissair (to name one of them) binned all their staff and have been unable to replace them...
Travelled to Santorini a month or so ago (TUI from Birmingham//EasyJet to Luton).
Johnson resigned shportly before we we joined the check-in queue at Birmingham. I was standing there feverishly getting bet after bet on in a thin market (laying Raab to be next PM as punters hadn't read the rules of the Smarkets market).
A good bit of anecdote reporting, from the press rather than TV again, because it captures a sentiment, simultaneously strong and low-key.
"Victoria, 53, an artist, and her daughter Grace, 20, an art and philosophy student, woke up at 3.45am to come from Linlithgow, West Lothian, by train. Both women said they had an emotional response to the Queen’s death, which contradicted their republican sympathies.
“We’re not royalists but it has been a very strange thing, to be affected by the Queen dying,” Victoria said. “And Grace was very affected too, so we thought: ‘Let’s go.’
“From a political point of view, I’m just a bit confused because it’s what I’m against politically, but I just felt an emotional desire to come. I wasn’t expecting to feel this way.”
Grace, an art and philosophy student, remembers learning about the Queen in primary school. “I’m not a royalist; I don’t feel particularly connected with the monarchy,” she said. “[Yet] now she’s gone, it feels almost like I have lost a distant relative or something.”
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
I assume that those who are apt to vote Conservative are over-represented in the 62% who want the monarchy to continue. And I suspect that the 22% who don't are likely to be branded "lefties". Certainly such expressions of republicanism as I've heard come from the left. I'm afraid that the death of the Queen so far from spoiling Truss's period of honeymoon is likely to see it extended.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Different levels of risk assessment back then - if someone went under the train, it would be their own fault. Now, it would a public enquiry. And when it came out that the risk was recognised in planning and ignored, the person ignoring it would be legally liable.
By car would have been sensible. And that is what I would have done. A rather meandering route, probably, to make sure that there were many miles of pavement which people could stand on, if they chose. Complete with a phone app detailing the route, the location of the hearse, and the estimated time to a given location...
It is a bit like organising a bike race - a rolling roadblock of outriders and a timing sheet - which strangely enough they had practice with on Deeside only a few days before as the Tour of Britain passed the gates of Balmoral.
No need for an app, really, just a list of fast/slow times.
One way or another, they've missed a trick.
Berwick, Newcastle, Durham, York, Doncaster, Nottingham, Leicester, Northampton. That's a significant population.
A lot easier to process (is that a word?) the coffin past the crowds than to process the crowd past the coffin, although I appreciate that doesn't have quite the same meaning.
“A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”
Couldn’t agree more.
This stinks.
It does. Falling apart by the hour now.
Responding to the Guardian, the Metropolitan police said: “People have the right to protest. We urge those who want to, to do so with the dignity and respect that is expected during this significant period of reflection.”
And this statement encapsulates precisely the problem.
As a matter of good manners, you wouldn't normally go to a funeral and shout abuse about the deceased or their family.
If you don't want to participate in all these rituals, stay away.
But it is not the role of the police or the criminal law to enforce good manners.
And this sort of prissy statement telling us all how to behave - as if the Met were the school headmaster - is not on. That statement would have read better if it said something like "We would ask those who want to do so to consider those who wish to mourn HMQ and those who wish to mourn to respect the right of others to express their view". That would better express a live and let live approach rather than this assumption that somehow national mourning should somehow override everything else.
This is not just a private family event. But a state event. So people are - and should be - allowed to express a view about the political implications of what is happening.
The reality is that those who want to honour the Queen can and are doing so. They are not being prevented from doing so by people holding up placards saying "Not my King" or "Who elected him" or even people heckling Andrew. So let them do so instead of this heavy-handed behaviour and potential abuse of police powers.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
Ah, but redemption.
I thought the ending perfect.
I'm doing BOSCH at the moment since I have a free 30 day Amazon trial which I got for the US Open tennis.
15 days left to deal with the remaining 4 seasons. Tight.
Bosch is very good. Second tier though - not in the same league as Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul.
Now TV is good for short term needs. I used it for Open golf. Doesn't work when one is abroad though - which is annoying.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
The thing is if not now when? Despite our excellence, we are both of advancing years. Isn't this what we've been working for? Financially we are in the decumulation stage surely?
Russian forces have allegedly withdrawn from the town of Kramina, and local partisans have raised Ukrainian flags over the city - despite the Ukrainian army not yet being there. This is in Luhansk, well on the eastern side of the Oksil River, and not far away from the city of Severodonetsk.
I (and others) were expecting the Russians to try to make the Oksil river a new defence line, but this is well beyond that.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
4. Russia needs to accept that it is in the wrong; no 'we were betrayed' myth that will just lead to another war in the future. This involves teaching the next generation what happened.
I see Senate Republicans are going to introduce a bill to ban abortions nationally. Because what polling has shown is that moderate US voters loves it when the Republicans talk about banning abortion.
Two observations - first, if it is indeed down to 16 weeks this looks like a cynically focus group tested piece of legislation. Second, I was assured on here repeatedly that it was impossible to pass national legislation banning abortion. So someone should tell the GOP they are wasting their time.
If it's down to 16 weeks it's hardly "banning" abortion, is it? It's stricter than here, sure, but more lenient than in, say, France.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
Charles de Gaulle was the best airport in the world to change flights on 11 August 1999. I was flying from Southampton to Nice, with a two and a half hour wait at CDG on the way
This coincided perfectly with the solar eclipse that day, and I was waiting in the glass roofed terminal
I get that eclipse watching opportunities may not be the best way to rate airports
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Random bit of trivia. When Bobby Kennedy's body was taken from New York to DC back in 1968, two onlookers were killed and four injured in an accident in New Jersey.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
JFK says hi.
LAX laughs in the face of JFK and Heathrow.
Seriously, though, London Heathrow isn't even in the bottom 50 airports in the world.
I presume that YBard ran into a bunch of remainer skiers at Heathrow, and this has colored his judgement.
Charles de Gaulle was the best airport in the world to change flights on 11 August 1999. I was flying from Southampton to Nice, with a two and a half hour wait at CDG on the way
This coincided perfectly with the solar eclipse that day, and I was waiting in the glass roofed terminal
I get that eclipse watching opportunities may not be the best way to rate airports
That's extraordinary, because I was actually there too, going to a wedding in Paris.
“A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”
Couldn’t agree more.
This stinks.
It does. Falling apart by the hour now.
Responding to the Guardian, the Metropolitan police said: “People have the right to protest. We urge those who want to, to do so with the dignity and respect that is expected during this significant period of reflection.”
And this statement encapsulates precisely the problem.
As a matter of good manners, you wouldn't normally go to a funeral and shout abuse about the deceased or their family.
If you don't want to participate in all these rituals, stay away.
But it is not the role of the police or the criminal law to enforce good manners.
And this sort of prissy statement telling us all how to behave - as if the Met were the school headmaster - is not on. That statement would have read better if it said something like "We would ask those who want to do so to consider those who wish to mourn HMQ and those who wish to mourn to respect the right of others to express their view". That would better express a live and let live approach rather than this assumption that somehow national mourning should somehow override everything else.
This is not just a private family event. But a state event. So people are - and should be - allowed to express a view about the political implications of what is happening.
The reality is that those who want to honour the Queen can and are doing so. They are not being prevented from doing so by people holding up placards saying "Not my King" or "Who elected him" or even people heckling Andrew. So let them do so instead of this heavy-handed behaviour and potential abuse of police powers.
Are there significant numbers of people suffering the claimed wrong?
The woman in Scotland is much more likely to have been arrested for the profanity on her sign at a public family event than for the sentiment it expressed.
The man in Oxford was not arrested for one shout of "who elected him". He went on like the town drunk for so long it was interfering with the ceremony (I was there).
People in London with more basic protest signs seem mainly to have been moved to a place they weren't in the way, rather than arrested.
The whole thing looks like an attempt to claim persecution as a PR move to me father than anything that's actually happened.
Jeffery twatting Archer on Sky News discussing the Royals.
Why not get Ghislaine Maxwell on as well.
Is he telling an anecdote about the time he and Gyles Brandreth stepped on a corgi ?
The sheer quantity of the more fluffy parts of the coverage is now beginning to generate a Magical Mystery Tour queasiness, as mentioned yesterday. Gyles Brandreth's jumper flying back through time to meet Queen Victoria and Charles II.
Yet you're still watching it, apparently.
In places, not since yesterday now.
I haven't watched it at all since Friday evening. This is an option for all people who find it either boring or OTT.
Nope, there are no other options whatsoever, it's so unfair.
Complaining other news is not getting a look in is sounder than complaining 24 hour news is repetitive.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
There is a “Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation” issued by the Major government which explicitly exempts the Royal family from income, capital gains & inheritance taxes. As far as I can see there is no actual exemption in law, but the government takes the view that the Monarch & her family are in effect “outside the law” in this & other matters. (This doesn’t apply to the Crown Estate, which has different rules.)
Elizabeth II chose to pay income & capital gains taxes during her later lifetime, but her personal estate will pass to Charles III with no inheritance tax. Press reports say that this has been confirmed by the Palace already.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
The thing is if not now when? Despite our excellence, we are both of advancing years. Isn't this what we've been working for? Financially we are in the decumulation stage surely?
I retired very early so I don't quite feel that "right let's do things now!" urgency. Also I travelled an awful lot in my 20s and 30s and early 40s.
But yes, my wife is younger than me and has lots on her list so I'll be tagging along, I think. The consequences of not tagging along aren't appealing.
We've started small with Bruges. Next Amsterdam. Then Greek Island. Then Japan. Then ... well let's not get ahead of ourselves.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
4. Russia needs to accept that it is in the wrong; no 'we were betrayed' myth that will just lead to another war in the future. This involves teaching the next generation what happened.
That may be wishful thinking. I reckon we are one mad leader away from a real reckoning. We're at the Hague stage (in more ways than one), with IDS is still to come. Or indeed the Ed Miliband stage awaiting Corbyn. There is just too much incipient stab in the back potential in Russia for now. Or put another way, they are moving from the denial stage to anger.
So, messy and lacking closure as it is, I think the medium term is one of active containment and ongoing vigilance. Normality feels decades away. Russia won't accept blame - it will blame the West, Nazis, its own weak generals, Putin, corruption. Anything but its own imperial delusions. If Putin stays then it's Saddam after Gulf war I or Libya after Lockerbie. If Putin goes then it may well be like Iraq after Gulf War II and Libya after Gaddaffi.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
The thing is if not now when? Despite our excellence, we are both of advancing years. Isn't this what we've been working for? Financially we are in the decumulation stage surely?
I retired very early so I don't quite feel that "right let's do things now!" urgency. Also I travelled an awful lot in my 20s and 30s and early 40s.
But yes, my wife is younger than me and has lots on her list so I'll be tagging along, I think. The consequences of not tagging along aren't appealing.
We've started small with Bruges. Next Amsterdam. Then Greek Island. Then Japan. Then ... well let's not get ahead of ourselves.
This thread is quite extraordinary. It's intended to be an exposé of the journalist Helen Lewis, but instead reveals a lot about the insanity of contemporary identity politics in the US.
This is the DM that Helen sent to someone who curated an exhibition at the Guggenheim museum.
In a response which included a "fuck you", Helen Lewis was called a "clueless, rapacious White woman" and told that "there is not enough in your background to suggest to me that you do not defer to Whiteness".
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
The quantity of flowers actually make me a little sad, for the missed opportunity. All that money spent, that could perhaps have been redirected to one or more of the charities the Queen supported. People should of course be free to mark her passing in any way they wish, but that's how I feel.
And a shame about the plastic too. People are not following instructions, rather oddly as they must have looked up where to go.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Different levels of risk assessment back then - if someone went under the train, it would be their own fault. Now, it would a public enquiry. And when it came out that the risk was recognised in planning and ignored, the person ignoring it would be legally liable.
By car would have been sensible. And that is what I would have done. A rather meandering route, probably, to make sure that there were many miles of pavement which people could stand on, if they chose. Complete with a phone app detailing the route, the location of the hearse, and the estimated time to a given location...
It is a bit like organising a bike race - a rolling roadblock of outriders and a timing sheet - which strangely enough they had practice with on Deeside only a few days before as the Tour of Britain passed the gates of Balmoral.
No need for an app, really, just a list of fast/slow times.
One way or another, they've missed a trick.
Berwick, Newcastle, Durham, York, Doncaster, Nottingham, Leicester, Northampton. That's a significant population.
A lot easier to process (is that a word?) the coffin past the crowds than to process the crowd past the coffin, although I appreciate that doesn't have quite the same meaning.
A trifle unambitious. Why not follow the route of the Commonwealth Games "baton"? Surely it's what she'd have wanted. Ending up in Birmingham would be a welcome break from the stultifying embrace of tradition - an unambiguous statement of intent for the 21st century.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
There is a “Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation” issued by the Major government which explicitly exempts the Royal family from income, capital gains & inheritance taxes. As far as I can see there is no actual exemption in law, but the government takes the view that the Monarch & her family are in effect “outside the law” in this & other matters. (This doesn’t apply to the Crown Estate, which has different rules.)
Elizabeth II chose to pay income & capital gains taxes during her later lifetime, but her personal estate will pass to Charles III with no inheritance tax. Press reports say that this has been confirmed by the Palace already.
I saw that, but couldn't believe they would be so unwise.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
JFK says hi.
LAX laughs in the face of JFK and Heathrow.
Seriously, though, London Heathrow isn't even in the bottom 50 airports in the world.
I presume that YBard ran into a bunch of remainer skiers at Heathrow, and this has colored his judgement.
Nah, JFK is definitely worse than LAX. Heathrow isn't bad at all IMO, T5 could be organised better without the T5B/C annexes but it's still better than most hub airports I've been to in Europe. I think at the moment it's bad because the airport management played it badly and are now playing catch up in a very tight labour market with rock bottom salaries.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Random bit of trivia. When Bobby Kennedy's body was taken from New York to DC back in 1968, two onlookers were killed and four injured in an accident in New Jersey.
I guess Stalin’s funeral meats wins the prize for funereal death tolls, anything between 100 to 1000s, in the modern age anyway. Horribly appropriate for the grisly, old bastard.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Trouble is the bookshops have often been closed down, also at rail stations - last time I was at KX the rather good one had become, I think, a Harry Potter franchise.
Stocking up on pre-publication books to read on holidays was a small but real treat.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Trouble is the bookshops have often been closed down, also at rail stations - last time I was at KX the rather good one had become, I think, a Harry Potter franchise.
Oh I take books with me. Wouldn't buy one at an airport.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
The thing is if not now when? Despite our excellence, we are both of advancing years. Isn't this what we've been working for? Financially we are in the decumulation stage surely?
I retired very early so I don't quite feel that "right let's do things now!" urgency. Also I travelled an awful lot in my 20s and 30s and early 40s.
But yes, my wife is younger than me and has lots on her list so I'll be tagging along, I think. The consequences of not tagging along aren't appealing.
We've started small with Bruges. Next Amsterdam. Then Greek Island. Then Japan. Then ... well let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Which Greek island?
Still up for grabs. A new one though - so not Crete or Corfu or Rhodes or Poros.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Trouble is the bookshops have often been closed down, also at rail stations - last time I was at KX the rather good one had become, I think, a Harry Potter franchise.
Oh I take books with me. Wouldn't buy one at an airport.
Me too - but the new ones were a bonus (also often bought on the way home).
“A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”
Couldn’t agree more.
This stinks.
It does. Falling apart by the hour now.
Responding to the Guardian, the Metropolitan police said: “People have the right to protest. We urge those who want to, to do so with the dignity and respect that is expected during this significant period of reflection.”
And this statement encapsulates precisely the problem.
As a matter of good manners, you wouldn't normally go to a funeral and shout abuse about the deceased or their family.
If you don't want to participate in all these rituals, stay away.
But it is not the role of the police or the criminal law to enforce good manners.
And this sort of prissy statement telling us all how to behave - as if the Met were the school headmaster - is not on. That statement would have read better if it said something like "We would ask those who want to do so to consider those who wish to mourn HMQ and those who wish to mourn to respect the right of others to express their view". That would better express a live and let live approach rather than this assumption that somehow national mourning should somehow override everything else.
This is not just a private family event. But a state event. So people are - and should be - allowed to express a view about the political implications of what is happening.
The reality is that those who want to honour the Queen can and are doing so. They are not being prevented from doing so by people holding up placards saying "Not my King" or "Who elected him" or even people heckling Andrew. So let them do so instead of this heavy-handed behaviour and potential abuse of police powers.
Are there significant numbers of people suffering the claimed wrong?
The woman in Scotland is much more likely to have been arrested for the profanity on her sign at a public family event than for the sentiment it expressed.
The man in Oxford was not arrested for one shout of "who elected him". He went on like the town drunk for so long it was interfering with the ceremony (I was there).
People in London with more basic protest signs seem mainly to have been moved to a place they weren't in the way, rather than arrested.
The whole thing looks like an attempt to claim persecution as a PR move to me father than anything that's actually happened.
I was commenting on the statement by the Met. And the belief which seems far too widespread that it is for the criminal law to enforce good manners. It isn't.
Also, the police are a bit too inclined to abuse their powers and mislead the public about what they can and cannot do. It happened with the Covid laws. It looks as if on a few occasions some may be trying it on with the Public Order Act now. And then there is the execrable Police, Courts and Sentencing Act this year. So it is always a good time to challenge the police when one of their officers overstates the law. One doesn't need to like the protestors. And if they are seeking to make a point, it is IMO a good point to make.
If we are going to criticise Putin's henchmen for arresting people in Moscow for holding up blank sheets of paper then we should be just as willing to criticise the police here when they tell protestors that while they can hold up a blank placard they will be arrested if they wrote "Not my King" on it. It is an absurd overreaction. And unlawful.
This thread is quite extraordinary. It's intended to be an exposé of the journalist Helen Lewis, but instead reveals a lot about the insanity of contemporary identity politics in the US.
This is the DM that Helen sent to someone who curated an exhibition at the Guggenheim museum.
In a response which included a "fuck you", Helen Lewis was called a "clueless, rapacious White woman" and told that "there is not enough in your background to suggest to me that you do not defer to Whiteness".
WTF? "literally demanding that I speak to her" - Again with the "literally", saying "might we talk?" is not a literal demand.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Trouble is the bookshops have often been closed down, also at rail stations - last time I was at KX the rather good one had become, I think, a Harry Potter franchise.
Oh I take books with me. Wouldn't buy one at an airport.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
There is a “Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation” issued by the Major government which explicitly exempts the Royal family from income, capital gains & inheritance taxes. As far as I can see there is no actual exemption in law, but the government takes the view that the Monarch & her family are in effect “outside the law” in this & other matters. (This doesn’t apply to the Crown Estate, which has different rules.)
Elizabeth II chose to pay income & capital gains taxes during her later lifetime, but her personal estate will pass to Charles III with no inheritance tax. Press reports say that this has been confirmed by the Palace already.
I saw that, but couldn't believe they would be so unwise.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
The thing is if not now when? Despite our excellence, we are both of advancing years. Isn't this what we've been working for? Financially we are in the decumulation stage surely?
I retired very early so I don't quite feel that "right let's do things now!" urgency. Also I travelled an awful lot in my 20s and 30s and early 40s.
But yes, my wife is younger than me and has lots on her list so I'll be tagging along, I think. The consequences of not tagging along aren't appealing.
We've started small with Bruges. Next Amsterdam. Then Greek Island. Then Japan. Then ... well let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Which Greek island?
Still up for grabs. A new one though - so not Crete or Corfu or Rhodes or Poros.
If in July or August take into consideration the wind (the Meltemi) which affects most islands. It can be very unpleasant. The way to avoid it is to choose an Ionian island. Corfu has been pretty much ruined. Zakynthos less so (as long as you avoid certain areas). Kephalonia is a great choice IMO. There are smaller Ionian islands too. Leon could advise.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Whoever is organising this funeral are making a real pigs trotter of it. They've just cancelled three more premier league games at the week end for no obvious reason. Not being able to cope with a funeral and a football match on different days- in one case in a different part of the couintry- doesn't doesn't bode well for our new status as a theme park.
What's more If any of the postponed teams look like they're heading for the quadruple there literally aren't going to be enough days available to play all the matches
Utter nonsense
When you are reading a @roger comment, always keep in mind his VERY FIRST reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in Feb 2022:
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Trouble is the bookshops have often been closed down, also at rail stations - last time I was at KX the rather good one had become, I think, a Harry Potter franchise.
Stocking up on pre-publication books to read on holidays was a small but real treat.
Being Aberdonian by upbringing if not descent I hardly ever buy overpriced glossy periodicals, however I tend to make an exception for flying - Iron Cross magazine for my last trip which was appropriately to Berlin.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
There is a “Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation” issued by the Major government which explicitly exempts the Royal family from income, capital gains & inheritance taxes. As far as I can see there is no actual exemption in law, but the government takes the view that the Monarch & her family are in effect “outside the law” in this & other matters. (This doesn’t apply to the Crown Estate, which has different rules.)
Elizabeth II chose to pay income & capital gains taxes during her later lifetime, but her personal estate will pass to Charles III with no inheritance tax. Press reports say that this has been confirmed by the Palace already.
HMRC manual www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-manual/intm860150 states
The Crown is not within the scope of the taxing acts and claim total relief unless an Act specifically makes it liable.
This thread is quite extraordinary. It's intended to be an exposé of the journalist Helen Lewis, but instead reveals a lot about the insanity of contemporary identity politics in the US.
This is the DM that Helen sent to someone who curated an exhibition at the Guggenheim museum.
In a response which included a "fuck you", Helen Lewis was called a "clueless, rapacious White woman" and told that "there is not enough in your background to suggest to me that you do not defer to Whiteness".
WTF? "literally demanding that I speak to her" - Again with the "literally", saying "might we talk?" is not a literal demand.
Helen Lewis (New Stateman and Guardian journo) was metaphorically crucified a few years ago for the crime of interviewing (yes just talking to) Jordan Peterson.
Charles de Gaulle was the best airport in the world to change flights on 11 August 1999. I was flying from Southampton to Nice, with a two and a half hour wait at CDG on the way
This coincided perfectly with the solar eclipse that day, and I was waiting in the glass roofed terminal
I get that eclipse watching opportunities may not be the best way to rate airports
That's extraordinary, because I was actually there too, going to a wedding in Paris.
I was a few miles north of Paris in Compeigne watching the eclipse.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Yes it is. This isn't a "good v evil" conflict - that is not imo the right way to view it - but it is a matter of right v wrong with the wrong all on one side.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
I bought my second engagement ring from the same jeweller as the first. He remembered me and our conservation about his website and the technology behind it, years before. Then gave me a very good price.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Yes it is. This isn't a "good v evil" conflict - that is not imo the right way to view it - but it is a matter of right v wrong with the wrong all on one side.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
Evil and wrong can by synonyms and Russia in this conflict is both.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
Yep, quite charmingly homely and a lavish selection of cured & smoked meats etc as I recall. In fact my memory may be playing up but I seem to remember a gamey smell permeating the place, just hope it wasn’t salted puffin.
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
What a strangely successful country Iceland is. It seems to have received the best of a combined Anglo-American and Scandinavian, more Continental influence. We could learn a bit from that.
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
What a strangely successful country Iceland is. It seems to have received the best of a combined Anglo-American and Scandinavian, more Continental influence. We could learn a bit from that.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
You've brought back memories of seeing the northern lights and ice chunks floating down rivers. This is where we stayed:
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
Wel,l I agree about Iceland I don't about Keflavík airport. What's more I was searched for weapons at Toronto before I was allowed onto the Icelandair plane and then again when I got off at Keflavik!
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Trouble is the bookshops have often been closed down, also at rail stations - last time I was at KX the rather good one had become, I think, a Harry Potter franchise.
Stocking up on pre-publication books to read on holidays was a small but real treat.
Which is why you go to St Pancras if you want to do any actually shopping...
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
What a strangely successful country Iceland is. It seems to have received the best of a combined Anglo-American and Scandinavian, more Continental influence. We could learn a bit from that.
Albeit not around banking regulations.
Wasn't there a much more genuine holding of the bankers to account in the end there, though ? Also a much more genuine national effort to recover across society, "all in it together", rather than as a empty slogan.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
So neither literally nor effectively. The Crown Estates, like everything belonging to "the Crown" should belong to the state and if we became a republic would do so, they are not and wouldn't be private property. The Crown Estates haven't been worked for, earnt or taxed, by any private individual.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
Trouble is the bookshops have often been closed down, also at rail stations - last time I was at KX the rather good one had become, I think, a Harry Potter franchise.
Stocking up on pre-publication books to read on holidays was a small but real treat.
Which is why you go to St Pancras if you want to do any actually shopping...
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch & its management is under the control of the government.
The Sovereign receives a payment out of the revenue of the Crown Estate as a replacement for the Civil List, which was causing political difficulties: Voting on the Monarch’s income every decade was highlighting to the general public exactly how much the Monarch was receiving from them on a regular basis. Now it never comes up, because it’s fixed as a proportion of the income of the Crown Estate.
So the Monarch (amongst many other things) gets 25% of the lease cost for every off-shore windfarm. Obviously the Monarch has done nothing to deserve that income, but that’s political fudges for you.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
Precisely.
The way some apologists are acting, you'd think we were suggesting that the tanks should be rolling down the streets of Moscow and the first born child of every Russian family should be sacrificed in homage.
Leaving the country that has been invaded, paying reparations for the invasion, and promising not to invade again, is not bellicosity.
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
Looks like new King Charles has got a rather bigger poll bounce than new PM Liz then, not that it matters so much for him as he has no election to fight
No, but support for the institution and its head would be relevant in ensuring its continuation.
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
Yep, quite charmingly homely and a lavish selection of cured & smoked meats etc as I recall. In fact my memory may be playing up but I seem to remember a gamey smell permeating the place, just hope it wasn’t salted puffin.
One favourite was Bournemouth. A bit of a WW2 leftover but small and fast, and I discovered one can sit outside. Trouble is for security reasons it'sd caged in so one feels like one is in the chimp house at Corstorphine, but just sitting in the fresh, avtur-scented air and sun was great. And then a Meteor came out and took off. No idea if this is still a thing, though, either the jet or the zoo experience.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Yes it is. This isn't a "good v evil" conflict - that is not imo the right way to view it - but it is a matter of right v wrong with the wrong all on one side.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
Evil and wrong can by synonyms and Russia in this conflict is both.
I'm not happy with calling countries evil.
Putin is evil and Russia is in the wrong - I'm ok with that.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
Precisely.
The way some apologists are acting, you'd think we were suggesting that the tanks should be rolling down the streets of Moscow and the first born child of every Russian family should be sacrificed in homage.
Leaving the country that has been invaded, paying reparations for the invasion, and promising not to invade again, is not bellicosity.
I am fine with being labelled bellicose about Ukraine. This is because I am quite hard core in my demands for the Ukrainian/China border.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
Precisely.
The way some apologists are acting, you'd think we were suggesting that the tanks should be rolling down the streets of Moscow and the first born child of every Russian family should be sacrificed in homage.
Leaving the country that has been invaded, paying reparations for the invasion, and promising not to invade again, is not bellicosity.
I'm uneasy about talking about reparations as I'm not sure it does much good.
However, Russia should be banned from sport (easy thing to do) until Putin has gone and they are a functioning democracy.
A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Different levels of risk assessment back then - if someone went under the train, it would be their own fault. Now, it would a public enquiry. And when it came out that the risk was recognised in planning and ignored, the person ignoring it would be legally liable.
By car would have been sensible. And that is what I would have done. A rather meandering route, probably, to make sure that there were many miles of pavement which people could stand on, if they chose. Complete with a phone app detailing the route, the location of the hearse, and the estimated time to a given location...
It is a bit like organising a bike race - a rolling roadblock of outriders and a timing sheet - which strangely enough they had practice with on Deeside only a few days before as the Tour of Britain passed the gates of Balmoral.
No need for an app, really, just a list of fast/slow times.
One way or another, they've missed a trick.
Berwick, Newcastle, Durham, York, Doncaster, Nottingham, Leicester, Northampton. That's a significant population.
A lot easier to process (is that a word?) the coffin past the crowds than to process the crowd past the coffin, although I appreciate that doesn't have quite the same meaning.
A trifle unambitious. Why not follow the route of the Commonwealth Games "baton"? Surely it's what she'd have wanted. Ending up in Birmingham would be a welcome break from the stultifying embrace of tradition - an unambiguous statement of intent for the 21st century.
A deliberate tour would obviously be a bit weird, but a direct route would surely be fine.
Moscow confirms Russian teachers in Ukr's Kharkiv Region have been arrested by advancing Ukr forces. The teachers had been reportedly sent by Moscow to teach a Rus curriculum in schools in occupied Ukr territory. When Rus forces retreated, it seems the teachers were left behind. https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/status/1569586731573301252
Sucks for them but probably legitimate, given they were engaged in indoctrination on behalf of an occupying power.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch.
IIRC Charles nearly did one on Blair - he proposed the complete end of all payments to the Royals, the Crown Estate give all revenue to the Monarchy, but pay tax on it.
It took a while for the penny to drop - aside from giving the Monarchy a big pay rise, this would remove the system of financial control by Parliament over the Monarchy.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
The quantity of flowers actually make me a little sad, for the missed opportunity. All that money spent, that could perhaps have been redirected to one or more of the charities the Queen supported. People should of course be free to mark her passing in any way they wish, but that's how I feel.
Comments
Also my experience is coloured by travelling quite a bit during the pandemic which was a joy (other than the UK passenger location forms which were a real pain compared to the French and Portuguese ones). Travelling by plane, even if it goes well, is miserable anyway. Travelling by ferry or train (which I do if taking bikes) is much more pleasurable.
1) People queue to see and place flowers at the Buckingham Palace gates. This can take a couple of hours. This is because there is a tightly controlled queue on Mall, and other access routes to the palace are closed. This in turn is to control the crowd - once at the Palace gates there is a fair bit of space to move around.
2) Each night, the staff remove the flowers (at least some) to the Floral Tribute in Green park (see pictures above). There is much more space there, and less people are going there than to the Palace. So yes, the Floral Tribute = The Green Park displays.
3) When the flowers at the floral tribute are dead, they are being removed to be composted.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
15 days left to deal with the remaining 4 seasons. Tight.
The main thing I would suggest is pre-booking timed tickets where you can. Since COVID, a number of attractions introduced free, but timed tickets. Which is an excellent way of reducing the pain of visiting.
I prefer Dublin airport to CDG.
Johnson resigned shportly before we we joined the check-in queue at Birmingham. I was standing there feverishly getting bet after bet on in a thin market (laying Raab to be next PM as punters hadn't read the rules of the Smarkets market).
Made £150 while I was waiting.
"Victoria, 53, an artist, and her daughter Grace, 20, an art and philosophy student, woke up at 3.45am to come from Linlithgow, West Lothian, by train. Both women said they had an emotional response to the Queen’s death, which contradicted their republican sympathies.
“We’re not royalists but it has been a very strange thing, to be affected by the Queen dying,” Victoria said. “And Grace was very affected too, so we thought: ‘Let’s go.’
“From a political point of view, I’m just a bit confused because it’s what I’m against politically, but I just felt an emotional desire to come. I wasn’t expecting to feel this way.”
Grace, an art and philosophy student, remembers learning about the Queen in primary school. “I’m not a royalist; I don’t feel particularly connected with the monarchy,” she said. “[Yet] now she’s gone, it feels almost like I have lost a distant relative or something.”
No need for an app, really, just a list of fast/slow times.
One way or another, they've missed a trick.
Berwick, Newcastle, Durham, York, Doncaster, Nottingham, Leicester, Northampton. That's a significant population.
A lot easier to process (is that a word?) the coffin past the crowds than to process the crowd past the coffin, although I appreciate that doesn't have quite the same meaning.
As a matter of good manners, you wouldn't normally go to a funeral and shout abuse about the deceased or their family.
If you don't want to participate in all these rituals, stay away.
But it is not the role of the police or the criminal law to enforce good manners.
And this sort of prissy statement telling us all how to behave - as if the Met were the school headmaster - is not on. That statement would have read better if it said something like "We would ask those who want to do so to consider those who wish to mourn HMQ and those who wish to mourn to respect the right of others to express their view". That would better express a live and let live approach rather than this assumption that somehow national mourning should somehow override everything else.
This is not just a private family event. But a state event. So people are - and should be - allowed to express a view about the political implications of what is happening.
The reality is that those who want to honour the Queen can and are doing so. They are not being prevented from doing so by people holding up placards saying "Not my King" or "Who elected him" or even people heckling Andrew. So let them do so instead of this heavy-handed behaviour and potential abuse of police powers.
Now TV is good for short term needs. I used it for Open golf. Doesn't work when one is abroad though - which is annoying.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying.
2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted.
3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
I (and others) were expecting the Russians to try to make the Oksil river a new defence line, but this is well beyond that.
This coincided perfectly with the solar eclipse that day, and I was waiting in the glass roofed terminal
I get that eclipse watching opportunities may not be the best way to rate airports
Seriously, though, London Heathrow isn't even in the bottom 50 airports in the world.
I presume that YBard ran into a bunch of remainer skiers at Heathrow, and this has colored his judgement.
The woman in Scotland is much more likely to have been arrested for the profanity on her sign at a public family event than for the sentiment it expressed.
The man in Oxford was not arrested for one shout of "who elected him". He went on like the town drunk for so long it was interfering with the ceremony (I was there).
People in London with more basic protest signs seem mainly to have been moved to a place they weren't in the way, rather than arrested.
The whole thing looks like an attempt to claim persecution as a PR move to me father than anything that's actually happened.
Complaining other news is not getting a look in is sounder than complaining 24 hour news is repetitive.
Elizabeth II chose to pay income & capital gains taxes during her later lifetime, but her personal estate will pass to Charles III with no inheritance tax. Press reports say that this has been confirmed by the Palace already.
But yes, my wife is younger than me and has lots on her list so I'll be tagging along, I think. The consequences of not tagging along aren't appealing.
We've started small with Bruges. Next Amsterdam. Then Greek Island. Then Japan. Then ... well let's not get ahead of ourselves.
So, messy and lacking closure as it is, I think the medium term is one of active containment and ongoing vigilance. Normality feels decades away. Russia won't accept blame - it will blame the West, Nazis, its own weak generals, Putin, corruption. Anything but its own imperial delusions. If Putin stays then it's Saddam after Gulf war I or Libya after Lockerbie. If Putin goes then it may well be like Iraq after Gulf War II and Libya after Gaddaffi.
I never get the love-in for Schiphol either I’m afraid.
https://twitter.com/chaedria/status/1569392148730068994
This is the DM that Helen sent to someone who curated an exhibition at the Guggenheim museum.
In a response which included a "fuck you", Helen Lewis was called a "clueless, rapacious White woman" and told that "there is not enough in your background to suggest to me that you do not defer to Whiteness".
Horribly appropriate for the grisly, old bastard.
Stocking up on pre-publication books to read on holidays was a small but real treat.
Also, the police are a bit too inclined to abuse their powers and mislead the public about what they can and cannot do. It happened with the Covid laws. It looks as if on a few occasions some may be trying it on with the Public Order Act now. And then there is the execrable Police, Courts and Sentencing Act this year. So it is always a good time to challenge the police when one of their officers overstates the law. One doesn't need to like the protestors. And if they are seeking to make a point, it is IMO a good point to make.
If we are going to criticise Putin's henchmen for arresting people in Moscow for holding up blank sheets of paper then we should be just as willing to criticise the police here when they tell protestors that while they can hold up a blank placard they will be arrested if they wrote "Not my King" on it. It is an absurd overreaction. And unlawful.
Reads like a very British compromise. I wonder what discussions went on behind the scenes?
When you are reading a @roger comment, always keep in mind his VERY FIRST reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in Feb 2022:
“It’s time for NATO to disband”
The Crown is not within the scope of the taxing acts and claim total relief unless an Act specifically makes it liable.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
https://hotelranga.is/
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
The Sovereign receives a payment out of the revenue of the Crown Estate as a replacement for the Civil List, which was causing political difficulties: Voting on the Monarch’s income every decade was highlighting to the general public exactly how much the Monarch was receiving from them on a regular basis. Now it never comes up, because it’s fixed as a proportion of the income of the Crown Estate.
So the Monarch (amongst many other things) gets 25% of the lease cost for every off-shore windfarm. Obviously the Monarch has done nothing to deserve that income, but that’s political fudges for you.
The way some apologists are acting, you'd think we were suggesting that the tanks should be rolling down the streets of Moscow and the first born child of every Russian family should be sacrificed in homage.
Leaving the country that has been invaded, paying reparations for the invasion, and promising not to invade again, is not bellicosity.
Putin is evil and Russia is in the wrong - I'm ok with that.
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
However, Russia should be banned from sport (easy thing to do) until Putin has gone and they are a functioning democracy.
It took a while for the penny to drop - aside from giving the Monarchy a big pay rise, this would remove the system of financial control by Parliament over the Monarchy.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.