I still can't work out his most famous case http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465718.stm, the law is very clear when it comes to traffic violations. Short of having a heart attack in your car you simply are not allowed to break traffic laws for any reason whatsoever, they are strict liabilities. Mens rea simply never enters into this part of the law. My thoughts are that the magistrate was swayed by having Sir Alex with an expensive brief in front of him and was completely incorrect, and would have found anyone else guilty if they'd come up with that excuse.
No objection to that, but worth noting that the cyclist involved in the fatal crash was judged to have done nothing illegal (there's a question around whether cyclists should be permitted to proceed at speed in the area in question or whether safety of others requires restrictions, one I can't answer not knowing it well enough, but that fact is it was permitted).
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise to win the Cannonball Run Nadine Dorries to host Countryfile Mice to be held accountable Push to train 20,000 new chimney sweeps
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
Can't tell whether that is a joke or even possibly serious.
Farage is quite clear he wants to take over the Tory party. JRM would like that to happen.
JRM has recently started looking more and more like Herr Flick. I don’t know if it’s the glasses or haircut. But it means when he delivers pieces to camera like this there’s a bit of a background Allo-Allo menace there.
I would also say the changes to personal taxation have been, by and large, a success, particularly the raising of the personal allowance, though I appreciate that was a shameless nabbing of LD policy.
In fact; I think you should really look at the government in two phases - 2010-2016 and 2016-2024. The former was, I think, a fundamentally competent government even if you disagreed on policy aims and objectives. It’s been an absolute shambles since.
I do wonder if a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be the optimal outcome for the country come Jan 2024. A massive Labour majority would see Starmer spending too much time fending off the complacent Left, while a coalition would moderate everything nicely.
I suspect over the course of the campaign the poll gap will narrow, normally most elections see a swing back to the incumbent governing party by polling day.
Remember Cameron had almost as big a poll lead over Brown as Starmer has over Sunak now six months before election day. Though I suspect Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland would give it enough seats for an overall majority in the UK even if in England alone Labour does not have a majority without LD seats too
Ohh yeah, as sure as night follows day, those polls will narrow
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
Yes I like her too. I read her "Twilight of Democracy" book. She's been ploughing a rather lonely furrow on this. Everybody agrees with her, but nobody is willing to do the necessary to stop it. It's like John harris on British poverty and alienation. Everybody nods their head and does nothing. It is rather saddening.
See also Timothy Snyder's The Road to Unfreedom, which explores a similar theme.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
Can't tell whether that is a joke or even possibly serious.
As plans go, it would probably save more seats than whatever the fuck it is that Big Rish thinks he's doing and it would badly wrongfoot Tel Aviv Keith. Although, it does require some swallowing of pride (no, not that kind) from the tories as it acknowledges they are no longer capable of winning an election as a single party.
This is a further rationale for my view, which I hadn't considered at the time: "...these tariffs stand in for demand side measures that might usually be achieved by procurement or regulation or local content requirements. But since the Biden admin cannot legislate again, it has to figure out how to support projects in a different way..."
Surely there is diminishing returns the more people who defect. Elphicke got a load of press; the fifth or sixth person might be less advantageous newswise to Labour, and less damaging to the Tories.
So if you're going to jump, do it soon. Or, as I suspect, will there be multiple at the same time?
I've heard it said that one of the things that killed public support in the US for the Vietnam War was the daily announcement of US casualty figures on the evening news.
Don't underestimate the power of repetition. For someone following the daily twists and turns you may get bored of it quickly, but for the country at large repetition is extremely powerful.
The Irish government is finding this with the refugee tent encampments in Dublin that keep popping up after they clear the previous one. They're on number four now, and each additional time is doing them more damage ahead of the local and European elections in June.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
Yes I like her too. I read her "Twilight of Democracy" book. She's been ploughing a rather lonely furrow on this. Everybody agrees with her, but nobody is willing to do the necessary to stop it. It's like John harris on British poverty and alienation. Everybody nods their head and does nothing. It is rather saddening.
She's the sort of journalist (quite rare) who you read and think, "wish she was in politics rather than just writing about it".
Fwiw I think the big divide these days isn't right v left - it's politicians who mean well v those who don't.
The Biden Administration’s full slate of clean energy tariffs is now out.
Looks like when push and shove come protecting noncompetitive US business is more important than controlling inflation or the environment to the big man.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
I think that'd narrow the inevitable defeat. Probably hold onto around 220 or so seats.
Nah, let's say Reform are at 10%. That 10% probably splits out 5% to Tory, 2 or 3% to Labour the rest to FOAD everyone. It gets maybe 1.5% swing that could easily get eaten up by rats in a sack infighting and DKs moving to Labour as a 'no stitch ups here thanks'
No objection to that, but worth noting that the cyclist involved in the fatal crash was judged to have done nothing illegal (there's a question around whether cyclists should be permitted to proceed at speed in the area in question or whether safety of others requires restrictions, one I can't answer not knowing it well enough, but that fact is it was permitted).
The police love strict liability offences because it means they don’t have to do any work. There is a law on the books that deals with cyclists - it bans “furious cycling”. Yes, it’s a C19th law (IIRC) which is difficult to prosecute, but a cyclist doing time trials who rams into a pedestrian on Regent’s Park because they aren’t looking where they are going would probably be prosecutable under that law.
However, in this case, the pedestrian stepped out without looking in front of an entire peloton, leaving the cyclist in question 2m of braking distance. Even if they had been sticking to the 20mph speed limit a collision would probably have been inevitable. It seems very hard to argue that fault lies with the cyclists in this scenario & the CPS has, understandably, declined to prosecute.
It does, of course, make a great opportunity for the conservative press to stir up the culture war against cyclists. Expect lots of articles from the usual subjects about how terrible it all is, with a curious lacuna where the daily death toll from motorised vehicles ought to be mentioned.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
Your pointing it out here may not change the result, but the fact that the Conservative line, that they're all as bad as each other (a line taken by every dodgy political incumbent facing scrutiny of its own activities since time immemorial) is working with at least some posters shows its power.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
I think that'd narrow the inevitable defeat. Probably hold onto around 220 or so seats.
Nah, let's say Reform are at 10%. That 10% probably splits out 5% to Tory, 2 or 3% to Labour the rest to FOAD everyone. It gets maybe 1.5% swing that could easily get eaten up by rats in a sack infighting and DKs moving to Labour as a 'no stitch ups here thanks'
A Tory party promising cabinet jobs for Farage and Tice might claw back a few percentage points in the Thames Estuary and lose many more in Surrey and Hampshire.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
I think that'd narrow the inevitable defeat. Probably hold onto around 220 or so seats.
Nah, let's say Reform are at 10%. That 10% probably splits out 5% to Tory, 2 or 3% to Labour the rest to FOAD everyone. It gets maybe 1.5% swing that could easily get eaten up by rats in a sack infighting and DKs moving to Labour as a 'no stitch ups here thanks'
A Tory party promising cabinet jobs for Farage and Tice might claw back a few percentage points in the Thames Estuary and lose many more in Surrey and Hampshire.
Quite. They just need to take their medicine like big brave soldiers
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
What is the real purpose of the u.s. involvement in Ukraine ? Is it a coincidence that several senior democrats had corrupt ties over there prior to the war ? Why were the u.s. running biolabs on ukr soil that Nuland admitted to ? Why has the west no interest in negotiating peace ?
Quite simple really. To destroy Russias war making capability without taking any American casualties, and disposing of obsolete or surplus weapons in order to build shiny new ones.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
Yes I like her too. I read her "Twilight of Democracy" book. She's been ploughing a rather lonely furrow on this. Everybody agrees with her, but nobody is willing to do the necessary to stop it. It's like John harris on British poverty and alienation. Everybody nods their head and does nothing. It is rather saddening.
She's the sort of journalist (quite rare) who you read and think, "wish she was in politics rather than just writing about it".
Fwiw I think the big divide these days isn't right v left - it's politicians who mean well v those who don't.
She has been pretty actively involved in politics for a long time, though not party politics and never stood for election.
She's married to Poland's foreign minister, so one politician in the family is probably enough.
Dr. Foxy, that *was* the case. It seems Russia has overcome that by a mix of resurgent domestic production and closer ties to the likes of Iran for drones and North Korea for ammunition.
@NigelB and @TimS had made a couple of points on last thread about the standard of the BbC reporting and I didn’t see them as was having a massive rant about the Today programme which got hit by the curse of the new thread. I think the rant fits in with a lack of rigour in the BBC’s concept of political journalism now.
Rant below - sorry for length.
I’ve moaned about it a lot but I keep going back to the Today Programme because it’s a habit of 30 years but this morning has absolutely killed me. I really like Emma Barnett as a presenter and interviewer. I like Amol Rajan when he isn’t constantly dropping being a father into every conversation.
I was looking forward to it being not as good as I remember it but still a good start to the day, hoping somehow they would get a change of editor who wouldn’t have some f-ing teenage need for music segments every day to show how switched on they are on their magazine programme and instead get a new editor who would return it to a serious news programme with good longer form interviews about politics and events.
What do we get today, a five minute segment on Blinken singing a Neil Young song in Ukraine and then me thinking I had entered some time warp and was catching an older episode of Women’s Hour where Emma Barnett is reading out listeners comments on the new sex education rules.
Fuck off Today Editor. If people want pointless sections on music then they have loads of BBC stations to listen to. If they want to hear the public’s views from their tweets and texts on a relatively minor story then there is Radio 5. Why is there this absolutely pointless need to change everything and fuck up things that work perfectly well. All that is happening is Today is going to end up a mirror of R5 with more southern accents.
Farming Today had a really good interview this morning with Sunak and people involved in Food to Fork this morning that knocked any political commentary on Today into a cocked hat which says it all really.
Completely agree, and I have been listening to this since Jack de Manio days. I am often switching off with sheer boredom. The obsession with bad music is extraordinary. Half of their material is more suited to a daytime magazine style programme.
Emma Barnett needs to be given a chance, but this morning some of her questions were long speeches. The art of the interview is in the quality and incisiveness of the questions.
Ask a simple question: When last did this 3 hour daily programme give a serious update from informed experts/expert journalists on the military situation in Sudan and this war is developing?
Mrs Flatlander's usual response to the stupid music obsession is to moan about 15 year old producers and switch it off. PM is not immune to the same nonsense either.
The worst part of it is when they feel the need to play a 20 second extract as 'illustration'.
I too thought Emma Barnett was poor in her interview with the Home Office minister this morning. She liked her own voice a bit too much. For some reason she also felt the need to put in a jibe at the end about rainbow lanyards without the interviewee being able to reply.
She may improve, of course, but I don't hold out much hope.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
I think that'd narrow the inevitable defeat. Probably hold onto around 220 or so seats.
Nah, let's say Reform are at 10%. That 10% probably splits out 5% to Tory, 2 or 3% to Labour the rest to FOAD everyone. It gets maybe 1.5% swing that could easily get eaten up by rats in a sack infighting and DKs moving to Labour as a 'no stitch ups here thanks'
A Tory party promising cabinet jobs for Farage and Tice might claw back a few percentage points in the Thames Estuary and lose many more in Surrey and Hampshire.
In the event of a Tory/Reform pact how many Reform voters would follow Tice and Farage? A fair number seem very Anti-Tory, the mirror image of BJO and Labour.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
You've got at least 5, probably 10, possibly even15 years of this raging against Labour to look forward to Isam. Pace yourself.
Dr. Foxy, that *was* the case. It seems Russia has overcome that by a mix of resurgent domestic production and closer ties to the likes of Iran for drones and North Korea for ammunition.
That's "North Korea" for ammunition because we all know where it's really coming from... 🇨🇳
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
What is the real purpose of the u.s. involvement in Ukraine ? Is it a coincidence that several senior democrats had corrupt ties over there prior to the war ? Why were the u.s. running biolabs on ukr soil that Nuland admitted to ? Why has the west no interest in negotiating peace ?
Hi, got a quick question
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border, which side do you bury the survivors?
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
You've got at least 5, probably 10, possibly even15 years of this raging against Labour to look forward to Isam. Pace yourself.
Best to get into 'get them out' mode now to hit the floor running 1 second after the exit poll
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
The Biden Administration’s full slate of clean energy tariffs is now out.
Looks like when push and shove come protecting noncompetitive US business is more important than controlling inflation or the environment to the big man.
It's not about protecting non competitive US business as much as building a US presence in new industrial sectors.
One of the prime reasons for US lack of productivity growth in renewables (and the chip industry) is the lack of industrial investment.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
I think that'd narrow the inevitable defeat. Probably hold onto around 220 or so seats.
It'd look what it is though - desperate. Esp with Sunak still there.
Maybe they'll go this route in opposition. Indeed this is the big question facing them imo. There's lots of space here for a party of the populist right to do very well playing to fears and prejudice and appealing to baser instincts. Do the Tories want to stop messing around and be that party?
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
What is the real purpose of the u.s. involvement in Ukraine ? Is it a coincidence that several senior democrats had corrupt ties over there prior to the war ? Why were the u.s. running biolabs on ukr soil that Nuland admitted to ? Why has the west no interest in negotiating peace ?
Hi, got a quick question
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border, which side do you bury the survivors?
Remember the dodgy dossier and the Iraq war ? This is obviously another neo-con adventure. Look at the way the Ukr placement scheme was up and running so quickly, that psy-op campaign had echoes of the covid-response campaign too. We are being played. It is laughable to suggest that Russia is going to invade the West. We should offer them a position in Nato. We are the warmongers.
Standing down, in a target seat, to the left side of Toryism and independent minded on some issues, can provide a platform for education policy from his select committee work. Some of these elements present with Elphicke too
It wouldn't be free of problems, but neither would it quite confound in the way last week did.
While we're on the subject of "the car hating fanatical lycra mob", the single most pro-motoring MP in the House of Commons joining Labour would probably push a few more of them* into the arms of the Greens.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
No objection to that, but worth noting that the cyclist involved in the fatal crash was judged to have done nothing illegal (there's a question around whether cyclists should be permitted to proceed at speed in the area in question or whether safety of others requires restrictions, one I can't answer not knowing it well enough, but that fact is it was permitted).
The police love strict liability offences because it means they don’t have to do any work. There is a law on the books that deals with cyclists - it bans “furious cycling”. Yes, it’s a C19th law (IIRC) which is difficult to prosecute, but a cyclist doing time trials who rams into a pedestrian on Regent’s Park because they aren’t looking where they are going would probably be prosecutable under that law.
However, in this case, the pedestrian stepped out without looking in front of an entire peloton, leaving the cyclist in question 2m of braking distance. Even if they had been sticking to the 20mph speed limit a collision would probably have been inevitable. It seems very hard to argue that fault lies with the cyclists in this scenario & the CPS has, understandably, declined to prosecute.
It does, of course, make a great opportunity for the conservative press to stir up the culture war against cyclists. Expect lots of articles from the usual subjects about how terrible it all is, with a curious lacuna where the daily death toll from motorised vehicles ought to be mentioned.
Ah but perhaps the cyclists should have been scanning ahead and seen the pedestrian about to leap into their path, just as motorists have long been supposed to look out for small children, or now pedestrians preparing to cross the road.
This is one of the facets of the new, hierarchy of risk approach. It is not just cars being nice to bikes. Cyclists are now supposed to change their own behaviour. (Although to me, as a pedestrian, this is not very helpful in practice.)
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
(For me, as I liked kinabalu's comment) sure, there are some things that I think are fundamental and will probably never change (core principles, if you like - opposition to the death penalty, for example). But other things that I would have described as principles, have changed for me over time or I have at least become less certain. Maybe those are better described not as principles but as beliefs/views. For example, some of my views changed as my childhood religious convictions faded and as my politics changed.
I guess we have core principles that rarely change and other principles that are more evidence/world-view based and certainly can change.
I don't have core principles on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what I'd have voted for in 2016, possibly reluctantly to keep, but I'd be more in favour of retention now.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
What is the real purpose of the u.s. involvement in Ukraine ? Is it a coincidence that several senior democrats had corrupt ties over there prior to the war ? Why were the u.s. running biolabs on ukr soil that Nuland admitted to ? Why has the west no interest in negotiating peace ?
Oh I am sorry. Have I upset you?
As regards those supposed labs I suggest you read the article.
Dr. Foxy, that *was* the case. It seems Russia has overcome that by a mix of resurgent domestic production and closer ties to the likes of Iran for drones and North Korea for ammunition.
The “resurgent production” is nearly all reworking of stockpiled old equipment. The actual output of shiny new tanks is perhaps a hundred a year. Which is why we see lots of warned over T72. Same for artillery.
The overhead shots of the stockpile bases continues to show the same story - month by month the rows of rusting tanks and artillery grow thinner.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
I think that'd narrow the inevitable defeat. Probably hold onto around 220 or so seats.
Nah, let's say Reform are at 10%. That 10% probably splits out 5% to Tory, 2 or 3% to Labour the rest to FOAD everyone. It gets maybe 1.5% swing that could easily get eaten up by rats in a sack infighting and DKs moving to Labour as a 'no stitch ups here thanks'
A Tory party promising cabinet jobs for Farage and Tice might claw back a few percentage points in the Thames Estuary and lose many more in Surrey and Hampshire.
There are more 2019 Conservative Leave voters in the Thames Estuary now voting Reform than 2019 Tory Remain voters living in Surrey and Hampshire (many likely voting LD now anyway). Though yes the Conservatives need both groups to win a majority.
Only way Farage and Tice get in a Tory Cabinet is with PR, short of the Tories and Reform merging
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.
But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
(For me, as I liked kinabalu's comment) sure, there are some things that I think are fundamental and will probably never change (core principles, if you like - opposition to the death penalty, for example). But other things that I would have described as principles, have changed for me over time or I have at least become less certain. Maybe those are better described not as principles but as beliefs/views. For example, some of my views changed as my childhood religious convictions faded and as my politics changed.
I guess we have core principles that rarely change and other principles that are more evidence/world-view based and certainly can change.
I don't have core principles on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what I'd have voted for in 2016, possibly reluctantly to keep, but I'd be more in favour of retention now.
I have core principles on nuclear weapons.
Low burn up plutonium in a levitated, air gap layered, asymmetric core. Christie pits are so Ministry of Works.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
I don't see why anyone would have an issue with that, as long as the ban is proportionate to the ones that drivers get, with perhaps some consideration of the relative weights of the vehicles involved.
For example, a cyclist in Glasgow was left with life changing injuries after they were hit by a drink driver. 12 month ban. £540 fine.
Or a a hit-and-run driver in Glasgow who left a cyclist for dead. 16 month ban, 200 hours community service.
Or a 24 month driving ban (no fine) for deliberately ramming a cyclist off the road (with a prior conviction for dangerous driving...).
And that's just the dangerous ones. Most driving offences where cyclists are killed or seriously injured are pleaded down to Careless, with even lower penalties.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
What is the real purpose of the u.s. involvement in Ukraine ? Is it a coincidence that several senior democrats had corrupt ties over there prior to the war ? Why were the u.s. running biolabs on ukr soil that Nuland admitted to ? Why has the west no interest in negotiating peace ?
Hi, got a quick question
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border, which side do you bury the survivors?
Remember the dodgy dossier and the Iraq war ? This is obviously another neo-con adventure. Look at the way the Ukr placement scheme was up and running so quickly, that psy-op campaign had echoes of the covid-response campaign too. We are being played. It is laughable to suggest that Russia is going to invade the West. We should offer them a position in Nato. We are the warmongers.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
What is the real purpose of the u.s. involvement in Ukraine ? Is it a coincidence that several senior democrats had corrupt ties over there prior to the war ? Why were the u.s. running biolabs on ukr soil that Nuland admitted to ? Why has the west no interest in negotiating peace ?
Hi, got a quick question
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border, which side do you bury the survivors?
Remember the dodgy dossier and the Iraq war ? This is obviously another neo-con adventure. Look at the way the Ukr placement scheme was up and running so quickly, that psy-op campaign had echoes of the covid-response campaign too. We are being played. It is laughable to suggest that Russia is going to invade the West. We should offer them a position in Nato. We are the warmongers.
The Russian dictatorship don't like people deciding for themselves. Ukraine decided it wanted to join the EU. I'll stand by Ukraine and against dictatorship.
I hope you get your freedom in Russia eventually too.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
I think that'd narrow the inevitable defeat. Probably hold onto around 220 or so seats.
Nah, let's say Reform are at 10%. That 10% probably splits out 5% to Tory, 2 or 3% to Labour the rest to FOAD everyone. It gets maybe 1.5% swing that could easily get eaten up by rats in a sack infighting and DKs moving to Labour as a 'no stitch ups here thanks'
A Tory party promising cabinet jobs for Farage and Tice might claw back a few percentage points in the Thames Estuary and lose many more in Surrey and Hampshire.
There are more 2019 Conservative Leave voters in the Thames Estuary now voting Reform than 2019 Tory Remain voters living in Surrey and Hampshire (many likely voting LD now anyway). Though yes the Conservatives need both groups to win a majority.
Only way Farage and Tice get in a Tory Cabinet is with PR, short of the Tories and Reform merging
That's making the category error that Conservative leave voters will happily vote for Farage and Tice. 52% of the electorate (the ones who voted anyway) were happy to vote Brexit. I very much doubt 52% of voters would be happy with Farage in the cabinet. That sort of deal with Reform would lose a lot of leavers.
No objection to that, but worth noting that the cyclist involved in the fatal crash was judged to have done nothing illegal (there's a question around whether cyclists should be permitted to proceed at speed in the area in question or whether safety of others requires restrictions, one I can't answer not knowing it well enough, but that fact is it was permitted).
Now he wouldn't, he could only have been prosecuted for manslaughter or wanton or furious cycling under current law.
However Parliament is now debating whether to make it illegal to kill or seriously injure by dangerous cycling as motorists, lorry drivers and motorcyclists can now be prosecuted for killing or seriously injuring someone by dangerous or careless driving. Cycling while under the influence of drink or drugs is also likely to see a stiffer penalty police can enforce
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
Another outstanding piece by Anne Applebaum, one of my favourite journalists, about how autocracies have identified the promulgation of the rule of law, independent judgment, human rights and freedom of speech as dangerous ideas that need to be undermined not only in their own countries but in ours:
What is the real purpose of the u.s. involvement in Ukraine ? Is it a coincidence that several senior democrats had corrupt ties over there prior to the war ? Why were the u.s. running biolabs on ukr soil that Nuland admitted to ? Why has the west no interest in negotiating peace ?
Hi, got a quick question
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border, which side do you bury the survivors?
Remember the dodgy dossier and the Iraq war ? This is obviously another neo-con adventure. Look at the way the Ukr placement scheme was up and running so quickly, that psy-op campaign had echoes of the covid-response campaign too. We are being played. It is laughable to suggest that Russia is going to invade the West. We should offer them a position in Nato. We are the warmongers.
So, the people who are not fighting are the warmongers. The people who invaded are…peaceful.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
Your pointing it out here may not change the result, but the fact that the Conservative line, that they're all as bad as each other (a line taken by every dodgy political incumbent facing scrutiny of its own activities since time immemorial) is working with at least some posters shows its power.
I don’t police what I write on here by those considerations
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
Personally I view them as a financial burden, but one ourselves and France are obligated to hold alongside of course the US within NATO. If WW3 comes along London & Paris are higher up the target order than Madrid & Rome.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
I don't see why anyone would have an issue with that, as long as the ban is proportionate to the ones that drivers get, with perhaps some consideration of the relative weights of the vehicles involved.
For example, a cyclist in Glasgow was left with life changing injuries after they were hit by a drink driver. 12 month ban. £540 fine.
Or a a hit-and-run driver in Glasgow who left a cyclist for dead. 16 month ban, 200 hours community service.
Or a 24 month driving ban (no fine) for deliberately ramming a cyclist off the road (with a prior conviction for dangerous driving...).
And that's just the dangerous ones. Most driving offences where cyclists are killed or seriously injured are pleaded down to Careless, with even lower penalties.
I have a theory that thug cyclists are thug drivers, when they are in cars.
Based on people turning up, driving like twats, at Richmond Park on a Sunday. Get the bike off the car, riding round twattishly. Then putting the bike back on the car rack and leaving - guess what?
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
You've got at least 5, probably 10, possibly even15 years of this raging against Labour to look forward to Isam. Pace yourself.
Good advice but I do have empathy. During Boris Johnson's time in the sun I felt constantly pissed off and a bit miserable. It bugged me no end that this guy seemed to get away with murder, that people couldn't see right through him like I could, couldn't see who and what he was. I count myself very fortunate that he imploded relatively quickly because several years of it would have been quite tough to get through.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
(For me, as I liked kinabalu's comment) sure, there are some things that I think are fundamental and will probably never change (core principles, if you like - opposition to the death penalty, for example). But other things that I would have described as principles, have changed for me over time or I have at least become less certain. Maybe those are better described not as principles but as beliefs/views. For example, some of my views changed as my childhood religious convictions faded and as my politics changed.
I guess we have core principles that rarely change and other principles that are more evidence/world-view based and certainly can change.
I don't have core principles on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what I'd have voted for in 2016, possibly reluctantly to keep, but I'd be more in favour of retention now.
I think this is becoming a discussion on meanings of words, but, to me, principles are synonymous with what you call core principles. Sure, sometimes a person's principles will change due to a major external event - people talk about losing their belief, or finding it - but this is very rare. A once-in-a-lifetime event.
Everything else is a series of more-or-less confident conclusions, hypotheses, etc, that are open to revision in the face of new evidence, but some might require more evidence than others to change.
I certainly do know some people who are opposed to nuclear weapons on principle, as weapons whose only purpose is to cause destruction on such a scale that it's impossible to use them without committing evil. That's a principle that would still be true even if Russian tanks were advancing up the Mall.
It may be that Lammy previously opposed nuclear weapons for more prosaic reasons. Perhaps he felt that our defence would be stronger if the cost of nuclear weapons was spent in other ways, or perhaps he felt the world was safe enough that they were not necessary? In that case he wouldn't have changed a principle to modify his position on them.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
The problem with appointing these characters is that they're not suddenly going to become loyal, assiduous, reliable, professional, uncontroversial politicians. The plotting, show-boating and general trouble making will be off the charts with them around. The Tory Party would just explode and then sink into irrelevance.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
Personally I view them as a financial burden, but one ourselves and France are obligated to hold alongside of course the US within NATO. If WW3 comes along London & Paris are higher up the target order than Madrid & Rome.
During the Cold War, it turned out that the USSR warplan included nuking New Zealand. Despite their avowed anti-nuclear stance. Partly because the Russkies didn’t believe it and partly because - why not? If you’ve got tens of thousands of warheads, might as well.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
If you’re in this middle group, surely you don’t cite your conscience, religion and principles as reasons you’re against them
“Lammy , on the other hand, made a passionate speech in the House of Commons eight years ago, saying that, “as a Christian”, he thought “the idea of loving thy neighbour and protecting our world for future generations simply cannot hold if we have stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons”. He was against Trident on principle: “I cannot with a clear conscience vote for what is effectively a blank cheque for nuclear weapons.” And he was against it on practical grounds, saying nuclear weapons were “useless as a deterrent”, and asking: “Why do we need to have an independent programme at such a huge cost?”
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.
But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.
Surely the importance of reduction in inequality is very scenario dependent?
If the wealth of the country is split with the top 10% of people having 90% of the wealth and the rest 10% it should be a massive priority. If the wealth of the country is split with the top 10 having 15% and the rest 85%, then meh, look at something else.
Josh Self @Josh_Self_ NEW: Jacob Rees-Mogg's multi-point plan for Conservative election victory
— Election pact with Reform — Nigel Farage to be appointed as minister — Richard Tice and Ben Habib to be candidates — Boris Johnson to return as foreign secretary
The problem with appointing these characters is that they're not suddenly going to become loyal, assiduous, reliable, professional, uncontroversial politicians. The plotting, show-boating and general trouble making will be off the charts with them around. The Tory Party would just explode and then sink into irrelevance.
Another problem is that they are grifters who would be even more incapable than current ministers of doing the day-to-day job of governing, even if they were interested in doing so - which, of course, they are not.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
If you’re in this middle group, surely you don’t cite your conscience, religion and principles as reasons you’re against them
“Lammy , on the other hand, made a passionate speech in the House of Commons eight years ago, saying that, “as a Christian”, he thought “the idea of loving thy neighbour and protecting our world for future generations simply cannot hold if we have stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons”. He was against Trident on principle: “I cannot with a clear conscience vote for what is effectively a blank cheque for nuclear weapons.” And he was against it on practical grounds, saying nuclear weapons were “useless as a deterrent”, and asking: “Why do we need to have an independent programme at such a huge cost?”
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
(For me, as I liked kinabalu's comment) sure, there are some things that I think are fundamental and will probably never change (core principles, if you like - opposition to the death penalty, for example). But other things that I would have described as principles, have changed for me over time or I have at least become less certain. Maybe those are better described not as principles but as beliefs/views. For example, some of my views changed as my childhood religious convictions faded and as my politics changed.
I guess we have core principles that rarely change and other principles that are more evidence/world-view based and certainly can change.
I don't have core principles on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what I'd have voted for in 2016, possibly reluctantly to keep, but I'd be more in favour of retention now.
I think this is becoming a discussion on meanings of words, but, to me, principles are synonymous with what you call core principles. Sure, sometimes a person's principles will change due to a major external event - people talk about losing their belief, or finding it - but this is very rare. A once-in-a-lifetime event.
Everything else is a series of more-or-less confident conclusions, hypotheses, etc, that are open to revision in the face of new evidence, but some might require more evidence than others to change.
I certainly do know some people who are opposed to nuclear weapons on principle, as weapons whose only purpose is to cause destruction on such a scale that it's impossible to use them without committing evil. That's a principle that would still be true even if Russian tanks were advancing up the Mall.
It may be that Lammy previously opposed nuclear weapons for more prosaic reasons. Perhaps he felt that our defence would be stronger if the cost of nuclear weapons was spent in other ways, or perhaps he felt the world was safe enough that they were not necessary? In that case he wouldn't have changed a principle to modify his position on them.
Exactly. Using ‘principles’ as justification for doing something, or not, gives it extra gravitas that means you are fully committed to it, come what may. The reason Sir Keir irks me so much is that he often uses ‘principle’ to make himself seem virtuous on an issue, then u-turns on the matter at the drop of a hat. This shows he doesn’t value ‘principle’ at all. As big a fraud as any other politician, yet sells himself as Mr Integrity, & people lap it up.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
(For me, as I liked kinabalu's comment) sure, there are some things that I think are fundamental and will probably never change (core principles, if you like - opposition to the death penalty, for example). But other things that I would have described as principles, have changed for me over time or I have at least become less certain. Maybe those are better described not as principles but as beliefs/views. For example, some of my views changed as my childhood religious convictions faded and as my politics changed.
I guess we have core principles that rarely change and other principles that are more evidence/world-view based and certainly can change.
I don't have core principles on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what I'd have voted for in 2016, possibly reluctantly to keep, but I'd be more in favour of retention now.
I think this is becoming a discussion on meanings of words, but, to me, principles are synonymous with what you call core principles. Sure, sometimes a person's principles will change due to a major external event - people talk about losing their belief, or finding it - but this is very rare. A once-in-a-lifetime event.
Everything else is a series of more-or-less confident conclusions, hypotheses, etc, that are open to revision in the face of new evidence, but some might require more evidence than others to change.
I certainly do know some people who are opposed to nuclear weapons on principle, as weapons whose only purpose is to cause destruction on such a scale that it's impossible to use them without committing evil. That's a principle that would still be true even if Russian tanks were advancing up the Mall.
It may be that Lammy previously opposed nuclear weapons for more prosaic reasons. Perhaps he felt that our defence would be stronger if the cost of nuclear weapons was spent in other ways, or perhaps he felt the world was safe enough that they were not necessary? In that case he wouldn't have changed a principle to modify his position on them.
The whole “nukes can’t be used because they would cause vast civilians causalities” thing is wrong. And a dangerous way to think - some clown will work it out and then propose using them. Which is bad - for *other* reasons.
Consider
1) submarine launches a torpedo against your ship. Since no effective anti-torpedo weapons have ever been fielded, you shove a low yield nuke over the side. Detonate at depth. The blast is contained sub-surface - bubble collapse. The torpedo is smashed by shockwaves in the water. No dead people - just some dead fish. 2) go for the sub. This time, only dead military. 3) incoming missile attack on a ship at sea. One air burst nuke takes out an entire incoming swarm. 4) shoot down incoming military aircraft. A 1kt nuke on your missile raises your probability of a kill to about 1. 5) around the world, many airbases and military facilities are many miles from civilian populations. You could hit one and guarantee the only civilians killed would be the cleaners.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
If you’re in this middle group, surely you don’t cite your conscience, religion and principles as reasons you’re against them
“Lammy , on the other hand, made a passionate speech in the House of Commons eight years ago, saying that, “as a Christian”, he thought “the idea of loving thy neighbour and protecting our world for future generations simply cannot hold if we have stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons”. He was against Trident on principle: “I cannot with a clear conscience vote for what is effectively a blank cheque for nuclear weapons.” And he was against it on practical grounds, saying nuclear weapons were “useless as a deterrent”, and asking: “Why do we need to have an independent programme at such a huge cost?”
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
If you’re in this middle group, surely you don’t cite your conscience, religion and principles as reasons you’re against them
“Lammy , on the other hand, made a passionate speech in the House of Commons eight years ago, saying that, “as a Christian”, he thought “the idea of loving thy neighbour and protecting our world for future generations simply cannot hold if we have stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons”. He was against Trident on principle: “I cannot with a clear conscience vote for what is effectively a blank cheque for nuclear weapons.” And he was against it on practical grounds, saying nuclear weapons were “useless as a deterrent”, and asking: “Why do we need to have an independent programme at such a huge cost?”
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Dr. Foxy, that *was* the case. It seems Russia has overcome that by a mix of resurgent domestic production and closer ties to the likes of Iran for drones and North Korea for ammunition.
That's "North Korea" for ammunition because we all know where it's really coming from... 🇨🇳
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.
But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.
I'm fairly certain that you do have such principles, but you don't recognise them as such. I think it's a cognitive shortcut that is pretty inherent and everyone has.
Dr. Foxy, that *was* the case. It seems Russia has overcome that by a mix of resurgent domestic production and closer ties to the likes of Iran for drones and North Korea for ammunition.
The “resurgent production” is nearly all reworking of stockpiled old equipment. The actual output of shiny new tanks is perhaps a hundred a year. Which is why we see lots of warned over T72. Same for artillery.
The overhead shots of the stockpile bases continues to show the same story - month by month the rows of rusting tanks and artillery grow thinner.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
If you’re in this middle group, surely you don’t cite your conscience, religion and principles as reasons you’re against them
“Lammy , on the other hand, made a passionate speech in the House of Commons eight years ago, saying that, “as a Christian”, he thought “the idea of loving thy neighbour and protecting our world for future generations simply cannot hold if we have stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons”. He was against Trident on principle: “I cannot with a clear conscience vote for what is effectively a blank cheque for nuclear weapons.” And he was against it on practical grounds, saying nuclear weapons were “useless as a deterrent”, and asking: “Why do we need to have an independent programme at such a huge cost?”
Sure and he probably still believes that, but is now representing the Labour shadow cabinet that sees it differently.
Same with Cameron on Brexit, he has to pretend to like it, which isn't a big deal either, its just how collective responsibility works.
Perfectly fine. But don’t claim decisions are borne of conscience or principle
A lot of politics is a charade, its not all meant to be taken literally.
I know, but when people claim to have taken a decision ‘as a matter of principle’, or because of strong religious values, then go back on it, I think it’s beyond the pale
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
Unless you're mad, supporting the concept of nuclear deterrence can be no more than a pragmatic decision, surely ? And pragmatic support is necessarily liable to change with significant changes in circumstances.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
It's just not even remotely true that all politicians are the same. There's a wide spectrum of honesty/dishonesty in all parties.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.
But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.
Surely the importance of reduction in inequality is very scenario dependent?
If the wealth of the country is split with the top 10% of people having 90% of the wealth and the rest 10% it should be a massive priority. If the wealth of the country is split with the top 10 having 15% and the rest 85%, then meh, look at something else.
Yes it is scenario dependent. Also it can be a trade-off against other things. So for me 'fostering equality' is not a written-in-stone principle it's a value which some people (like me) have towards the top of their hierarchy and others (like say HYUFD) have towards the bottom or not featuring at all. That's how I try to arrive at my political views and opinions, not though principles but through a hierarchy of values. Principles that are immune to objective reality - I don't have these and I don't want any either.
@bondegezou - "It is an unwritten but real rule that the Arab parties in the Knesset are never invited into government."
Er ... in 2021 the United Arab List won 4 seats in the Knesset and its leader, Mansour Abbas, joined the coalition government, the first time an independent Arab party became a member of the Israeli government, and the first time in more than 50 years that any Arab party formed part of the Israeli government.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
Yes, I think most people do.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
Unless you're mad, supporting the concept of nuclear deterrence can be no more than a pragmatic decision, surely ? And pragmatic support is necessarily liable to change with significant changes in circumstances.
It can be power or prestige based rather than pragmatic. I don't think either quite fall into being mad.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
(For me, as I liked kinabalu's comment) sure, there are some things that I think are fundamental and will probably never change (core principles, if you like - opposition to the death penalty, for example). But other things that I would have described as principles, have changed for me over time or I have at least become less certain. Maybe those are better described not as principles but as beliefs/views. For example, some of my views changed as my childhood religious convictions faded and as my politics changed.
I guess we have core principles that rarely change and other principles that are more evidence/world-view based and certainly can change.
I don't have core principles on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what I'd have voted for in 2016, possibly reluctantly to keep, but I'd be more in favour of retention now.
I think this is becoming a discussion on meanings of words, but, to me, principles are synonymous with what you call core principles. Sure, sometimes a person's principles will change due to a major external event - people talk about losing their belief, or finding it - but this is very rare. A once-in-a-lifetime event.
Everything else is a series of more-or-less confident conclusions, hypotheses, etc, that are open to revision in the face of new evidence, but some might require more evidence than others to change.
I certainly do know some people who are opposed to nuclear weapons on principle, as weapons whose only purpose is to cause destruction on such a scale that it's impossible to use them without committing evil. That's a principle that would still be true even if Russian tanks were advancing up the Mall.
It may be that Lammy previously opposed nuclear weapons for more prosaic reasons. Perhaps he felt that our defence would be stronger if the cost of nuclear weapons was spent in other ways, or perhaps he felt the world was safe enough that they were not necessary? In that case he wouldn't have changed a principle to modify his position on them.
Exactly. Using ‘principles’ as justification for doing something, or not, gives it extra gravitas that means you are fully committed to it, come what may. The reason Sir Keir irks me so much is that he often uses ‘principle’ to make himself seem virtuous on an issue, then u-turns on the matter at the drop of a hat. This shows he doesn’t value ‘principle’ at all. As big a fraud as any other politician, yet sells himself as Mr Integrity, & people lap it up.
Do they ?
The consensus view would seem rather that a Starmer government is fairly unlikely to be worse than what we have, and *might* be better.
The only real evidence for people "lapping it up" is the consistent polling lead - which is quite easily explained by the determination to kick this government out.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
The interesting thing is you are (although I don't know you obviously) probably exactly the person Starmer is laser beam focused on winning over to Labour. Yet you utterly despise him.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
I still can't work out his most famous case http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465718.stm, the law is very clear when it comes to traffic violations. Short of having a heart attack in your car you simply are not allowed to break traffic laws for any reason whatsoever, they are strict liabilities. Mens rea simply never enters into this part of the law. My thoughts are that the magistrate was swayed by having Sir Alex with an expensive brief in front of him and was completely incorrect, and would have found anyone else guilty if they'd come up with that excuse.
As far as I know that's just not correct in practice. Take dangerous driving.
It's rare for it to be charged as such.
That's just what happens every day as a matter of absolute routine in on our streets, in our police stations and in our courts.
Including such blatantly dangerous driving as going round a blind corner or over a crest in the road, unsighted, at speed, on the wrong side of the road, at speed, driving with inability to read a number plate at 5-10m, driving straight through red lights, driving at the speed limit when dazzled by the sun, driving at 60mph in a 30-mph limit, and on it goes.
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
You present this all as a kind of gotcha, that will bring the edifice of Labour fakery crashing down. But we have two realistic options for a government in this country with its ridiculous FPTP system: Labour or Tory.
If your dreams were to come true and the electorate saw the Labour house of cards for what it is and brought it crashing down, then the upshot would be a Tory government.
This Tory government have changed their mind on just about every serious policy topic going, from tax and spend to Brexit to net zero to the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s your alternative choice. That’s FPTP.
I don’t present it as a gotcha, My pointing it out will not make any difference at all to the election result. The point I am making is that Labour paint themselves as virtuous, pious Saints who bathe in integrity, when they are just as two faced and lacking in principle as the people they cast as devils
The interesting thing is you are (although I don't know you obviously) probably exactly the person Starmer is laser beam focused on winning over to Labour. Yet you utterly despise him.
Assuming for argument‘s sake there is now adequate evidence that Trump knew the records were false - what’s the DA’s best evidence that his intent was to defraud and cover up some other crime? As opposed to, say, concealing sleazy but not criminal behavior? https://twitter.com/RDEliason/status/1790495758543724642
By approving the amount be grossed up. Violating NY Tax law. And by meeting with Pecker and Cohen to devise a scheme to interfere with the election. And by accepting an in-kind donation that exceeds the federal limit. https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1790506129140654117
Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience
David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.
Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.
We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.
It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore
Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.
I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts
People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.
Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?
I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.
But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.
Haidt is interesting on this. He compares our evolved moral principles to our five taste buds. We all have the same basic moral instincts but they differ in combination as some are more salient than others, just like our taste buds. Basic moral "tastes": 1 Caring and prevention of suffering 2 Fairness 3 Cooperation and team working 4 Autonomy 5 Sanctity 6 Respect for authority The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning. They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions. David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them. Just don't confuse me with the facts.
Comments
Nadine Dorries to host Countryfile
Mice to be held accountable
Push to train 20,000 new chimney sweeps
The Biden Administration’s full slate of clean energy tariffs is now out.
It looks like these tariffs are designed to create some demand certainty to backstop investment.
https://twitter.com/bentleyballan/status/1790325318575603902
This is a further rationale for my view, which I hadn't considered at the time:
"...these tariffs stand in for demand side measures that might usually be achieved by procurement or regulation or local content requirements. But since the Biden admin cannot legislate again, it has to figure out how to support projects in a different way..."
Don't underestimate the power of repetition. For someone following the daily twists and turns you may get bored of it quickly, but for the country at large repetition is extremely powerful.
The Irish government is finding this with the refugee tent encampments in Dublin that keep popping up after they clear the previous one. They're on number four now, and each additional time is doing them more damage ahead of the local and European elections in June.
Fwiw I think the big divide these days isn't right v left - it's politicians who mean well v those who don't.
However, in this case, the pedestrian stepped out without looking in front of an entire peloton, leaving the cyclist in question 2m of braking distance. Even if they had been sticking to the 20mph speed limit a collision would probably have been inevitable. It seems very hard to argue that fault lies with the cyclists in this scenario & the CPS has, understandably, declined to prosecute.
It does, of course, make a great opportunity for the conservative press to stir up the culture war against cyclists. Expect lots of articles from the usual subjects about how terrible it all is, with a curious lacuna where the daily death toll from motorised vehicles ought to be mentioned.
And Putin fell straight into that trap.
She's married to Poland's foreign minister, so one politician in the family is probably enough.
Dr. Foxy, that *was* the case. It seems Russia has overcome that by a mix of resurgent domestic production and closer ties to the likes of Iran for drones and North Korea for ammunition.
The worst part of it is when they feel the need to play a 20 second extract as 'illustration'.
I too thought Emma Barnett was poor in her interview with the Home Office minister this morning. She liked her own voice a bit too much. For some reason she also felt the need to put in a jibe at the end about rainbow lanyards without the interviewee being able to reply.
She may improve, of course, but I don't hold out much hope.
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border, which side do you bury the survivors?
One of the prime reasons for US lack of productivity growth in renewables (and the chip industry) is the lack of industrial investment.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KWA1d-N3LJM
Maybe they'll go this route in opposition. Indeed this is the big question facing them imo. There's lots of space here for a party of the populist right to do very well playing to fears and prejudice and appealing to baser instincts. Do the Tories want to stop messing around and be that party?
* ok, us
This is one of the facets of the new, hierarchy of risk approach. It is not just cars being nice to bikes. Cyclists are now supposed to change their own behaviour. (Although to me, as a pedestrian, this is not very helpful in practice.)
I guess we have core principles that rarely change and other principles that are more evidence/world-view based and certainly can change.
I don't have core principles on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what I'd have voted for in 2016, possibly reluctantly to keep, but I'd be more in favour of retention now.
As regards those supposed labs I suggest you read the article.
The overhead shots of the stockpile bases continues to show the same story - month by month the rows of rusting tanks and artillery grow thinner.
Only way Farage and Tice get in a Tory Cabinet is with PR, short of the Tories and Reform merging
But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.
Low burn up plutonium in a levitated, air gap layered, asymmetric core. Christie pits are so Ministry of Works.
Nuclear deterrent is an interesting one. I expect a small number of people are absolutely wedded to it come what may, because they just love nukes. But very few. And a rather larger number of people are opposed come what may, because they see nukes as wicked weapons that should never be used. But the largest group in the middle will be in favour, opposed, or say partially in favour (reduced Trident fleet, change in doctrine etc) and more susceptible to change their position based on geopolitical facts.
For example, a cyclist in Glasgow was left with life changing injuries after they were hit by a drink driver. 12 month ban. £540 fine.
Or a a hit-and-run driver in Glasgow who left a cyclist for dead. 16 month ban, 200 hours community service.
Or a 24 month driving ban (no fine) for deliberately ramming a cyclist off the road (with a prior conviction for dangerous driving...).
And that's just the dangerous ones. Most driving offences where cyclists are killed or seriously injured are pleaded down to Careless, with even lower penalties.
Have you ever sieved sand through a screen?
I hope you get your freedom in Russia eventually too.
Surely SKS will join the bidding race and if it happened there would still not be an ounce of criticism from SKS fans
However Parliament is now debating whether to make it illegal to kill or seriously injure by dangerous cycling as motorists, lorry drivers and motorcyclists can now be prosecuted for killing or seriously injuring someone by dangerous or careless driving. Cycling while under the influence of drink or drugs is also likely to see a stiffer penalty police can enforce
Got it. Thanks for coming.
Must pay a visit to Bempton & Flamborough soon...
Based on people turning up, driving like twats, at Richmond Park on a Sunday. Get the bike off the car, riding round twattishly. Then putting the bike back on the car rack and leaving - guess what?
Everything else is a series of more-or-less confident conclusions, hypotheses, etc, that are open to revision in the face of new evidence, but some might require more evidence than others to change.
I certainly do know some people who are opposed to nuclear weapons on principle, as weapons whose only purpose is to cause destruction on such a scale that it's impossible to use them without committing evil. That's a principle that would still be true even if Russian tanks were advancing up the Mall.
It may be that Lammy previously opposed nuclear weapons for more prosaic reasons. Perhaps he felt that our defence would be stronger if the cost of nuclear weapons was spent in other ways, or perhaps he felt the world was safe enough that they were not necessary? In that case he wouldn't have changed a principle to modify his position on them.
“Lammy , on the other hand, made a passionate speech in the House of Commons eight years ago, saying that, “as a Christian”, he thought “the idea of loving thy neighbour and protecting our world for future generations simply cannot hold if we have stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons”. He was against Trident on principle: “I cannot with a clear conscience vote for what is effectively a blank cheque for nuclear weapons.” And he was against it on practical grounds, saying nuclear weapons were “useless as a deterrent”, and asking: “Why do we need to have an independent programme at such a huge cost?”
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1790648817655689626?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
If the wealth of the country is split with the top 10% of people having 90% of the wealth and the rest 10% it should be a massive priority. If the wealth of the country is split with the top 10 having 15% and the rest 85%, then meh, look at something else.
Same with Cameron on Brexit, he has to pretend to like it, which isn't a big deal either, its just how collective responsibility works.
The Emperor’s New Clothes
Consider
1) submarine launches a torpedo against your ship. Since no effective anti-torpedo weapons have ever been fielded, you shove a low yield nuke over the side. Detonate at depth. The blast is contained sub-surface - bubble collapse. The torpedo is smashed by shockwaves in the water. No dead people - just some dead fish.
2) go for the sub. This time, only dead military.
3) incoming missile attack on a ship at sea. One air burst nuke takes out an entire incoming swarm.
4) shoot down incoming military aircraft. A 1kt nuke on your missile raises your probability of a kill to about 1.
5) around the world, many airbases and military facilities are many miles from civilian populations. You could hit one and guarantee the only civilians killed would be the cleaners.
Though there's this kind of thing.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-harbors-ship-tied-north-korea-russia-arms-transfers-satellite-images-show-2024-04-25/
China supplies machine tools and parts, and electronics in quantity, of course.
At this rate politicos are going to be pretty disappointed if there is no MP defection today
A few names circulating on the rumour mill
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-production-artillery-shells-has-soared-by-nearly-150-year-2024-03-21/
And pragmatic support is necessarily liable to change with significant changes in circumstances.
@bondegezou - "It is an unwritten but real rule that the Arab parties in the Knesset are never invited into government."
Er ... in 2021 the United Arab List won 4 seats in the Knesset and its leader, Mansour Abbas, joined the coalition government, the first time an independent Arab party became a member of the Israeli government, and the first time in more than 50 years that any Arab party formed part of the Israeli government.
The consensus view would seem rather that a Starmer government is fairly unlikely to be worse than what we have, and *might* be better.
The only real evidence for people "lapping it up" is the consistent polling lead - which is quite easily explained by the determination to kick this government out.
As far as I know that's just not correct in practice. Take dangerous driving.
It's rare for it to be charged as such.
That's just what happens every day as a matter of absolute routine in on our streets, in our police stations and in our courts.
Including such blatantly dangerous driving as going round a blind corner or over a crest in the road, unsighted, at speed, on the wrong side of the road, at speed, driving with inability to read a number plate at 5-10m, driving straight through red lights, driving at the speed limit when dazzled by the sun, driving at 60mph in a 30-mph limit, and on it goes.
Here is the charging guidance from the CPS, btw:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-fatal-offences-and-bad-driving
https://twitter.com/RDEliason/status/1790495758543724642
By approving the amount be grossed up. Violating NY Tax law. And by meeting with Pecker and Cohen to devise a scheme to interfere with the election. And by accepting an in-kind donation that exceeds the federal limit.
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1790506129140654117
Basic moral "tastes":
1 Caring and prevention of suffering
2 Fairness
3 Cooperation and team working
4 Autonomy
5 Sanctity
6 Respect for authority
The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning.
They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions.
David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them.
Just don't confuse me with the facts.