Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Rural areas are always more rightwing than the rest of the nation.
On Thursday the rump of Tory MPs remaining are likely to mainly represent rural areas and small market towns and even Clacton where Farage is likely to win includes a few rural villages like Weeley and St Osyth
Canada says hi.
Just come back from a weekend in the Wye valley (North Herefordshire bit just west of Hereford). Lots of Green posters around (Ellie Cohen?) the odd Labour poster, no Conservative but some very large Reform posters ("No Farmers. No food. Vote Reform")
Looking at the ERPs it looks like Con will hold with Greens in second place but it might be a close run thing.
Not sure if that supports the rural right wing hypothesis...
I do love a bit of James, one of the bands that transports back to school days in a good way.
Many years back, at Reading, Liam Gallagher started insulting the crowd. Many were metal heads who’d come to see Metallica play Sunday night, and were doing the whole weekend. So quite a lot in the crowd were just watching out of interest. Not enough worship for Mr Gallagher…
Anyway, his insults got more stupid and stuff was flying at the stage. Just at that moment the set ended and James came on next. The crowd was in an ugly mood, but the lead guy said something like - “Sorry, but we have to do this…” and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the UK.
The crowd went from StormTheStage to WeLikeThese guys in about 30 seconds…
struggling to think of any festival where James would be playing after Liam Gallagher. Be like Dave, Dee, Mich and Tich playing after David Bowie.
James were big before Oasis. There must have been a time when James were big and Oasis still quite small. Circa 1994, I would guess. (I saw Oasis in the Leadmill in Sheffield in 1994, just after Definitely Maybe came out. Competent musicians with good tunes, but you couldn't help taking an instant dislike to them. First gig I'd ever felt so unenthused that I'd gone for a piss to make the end come quicker.)
Weren't Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Titch actually the most successful bamd of the 60s?
Beatles say hi, I would have thought.
No, seriously. I can't remember the metric. Most records sold? Most No. 1s? They were insanely successful.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
When France24 aren’t accusing the RN of being living demon entities they make some interesting points
Eg macron is now irrelevant. He’s the lamest of lame duck French presidents who called an unnecessary election and has seen it blow up in his face. Whatever happens now, he is a comic figure and will be almost powerless
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
At risk of being accused of being petty, here's one policy from the Reform Manifesto (calling it a contract doesn't make it less a manifesto).
Reject the influence of the World Economic Forum.
That's one of their 'First 100 days' policies, so it is obviously a critical one.
I have no idea what that influence is, since it doesn't say, or why it is so important.
It's easy to mock, but there's no doubt that the structural effect of forusm like the WEF is more coordinated, top-down policy initiatives, with the same ideas simultaneously being pushed in multiple countries.
Hold on. That map seems to show that where our roving reporter, @Leon, has spent all week breathlessly reporting from sports bars that it is LePen all the way, actually support the Left.
When France24 aren’t accusing the RN of being living demon entities they make some interesting points
Eg macron is now irrelevant. He’s the lamest of lame duck French presidents who called an unnecessary election and has seen it blow up in his face. Whatever happens now, he is a comic figure and will be almost powerless
Quite incredible in itself
Possible image of the UK in 2029, tbh. Labour will raise taxes, do sod all on immigration, and the country will still be rogered. People will pick the hard right option.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
Yup. Motorcycle jump over three London buses, preferably on fire, or he won’t get my vote.
As a kid I remember being taken to some low budget stunt show (I think in Cornwall) and the guy jumped a motorbike through a "ring of fire" which all looked a bit pathetic....and he caught the edge of the ring, set himself on fire. Now the crowd seeing the rather piddly little jump thought this was all part of the show and that they would then set up a much bigger jump, so everybody was laughing as he was running the field like Benny Hill flaming licking from his back as support crew running after him with a blanket to try to put the flames out....Then the ambulance arrived to take him away to hospital.
Yeah, that does sound more like Rishi.
Rishi on a motorbike would be more like that scene out of the Inbetweeners.
Hold on. That map seems to show that where our roving reporter, @Leon, has spent all week breathlessly reporting from sports bars that it is LePen all the way, actually support the Left.
What are you fucking talking about you dull twat
I spoke about ONE town. Called Guingamp. Go check the map. It voted Le Pen
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
You say "wife"; MisterBedfordshite says "sphere of influence".
Sadly though I think we’re going to struggle to ignore this vein of thinking in the West in the next few years.
Putin and his BRICS friends represent a certain sort of lost masculinity, the certainty and mental surrender you get with the authoritarian strongman, and it’s quite appealing in a world that seems to be dissolving into chaos. And not good hard traditional chaos, but ambiguous, soft, confusingly digital chaos.
It's not a new train of thought. It's quite an old one. One that I think we should work towards outgrowing. We've made a lot of progress in the last 100 years. Clearly we've a little way to go still but arbitrated sovereignty is way better than imperialist spheres of influence as a model for international relations.
The Thirty Tyrants salespitch was that Athens had been led to defeat by all the weakness of democracy. They offered admiration of the Spartan, super manly, super awesome way - The! Glory! Of! The! Deed!
Cultural purity, get rid of the immigrants infesting the city…. A return to Traditional Athenian Values. But with an upgrade of Discipline.
Most of France on that map covered in the brown of Le Pen's RN Party.
In Paris though so far barely any brown except the outer, outer suburbs. It is all Macron's party and Melenchon's left block leading in Paris, indeed in the capital even the rump centre right Les Republicains are ahead in more seats than RN (presumably leading in a few of the wealthiest parts of Paris still)
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
You say "wife"; MisterBedfordshite says "sphere of influence".
Sadly though I think we’re going to struggle to ignore this vein of thinking in the West in the next few years.
Putin and his BRICS friends represent a certain sort of lost masculinity, the certainty and mental surrender you get with the authoritarian strongman, and it’s quite appealing in a world that seems to be dissolving into chaos. And not good hard traditional chaos, but ambiguous, soft, confusingly digital chaos.
It's not a new train of thought. It's quite an old one. One that I think we should work towards outgrowing. We've made a lot of progress in the last 100 years. Clearly we've a little way to go still but arbitrated sovereignty is way better than imperialist spheres of influence as a model for international relations.
The Thirty Tyrants salespitch was that Athens had been led to defeat by all the weakness of democracy. They offered admiration of the Spartan, super manly, super awesome way - The! Glory! Of! The! Deed!
Cultural purity, get rid of the immigrants infesting the city…. A return to Traditional Athenian Values. But with an upgrade of Discipline.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I’ve been thinking about this. What final stunt is a. exciting enough, b. connected to a policy goal or political point, c. safe? Something for this Tuesday that tells people “yes, fuck it, I’m going Lib Dem this time. Why not”.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
This is possible.
There was a 3.5m shark in Bournemouth on Thursday.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
Surely you're perceptive enough to see that the two things are different merely by degree. Holding another country within one's sphere of influence is very easy - you dictate policy, but you don't have to build any railways or put down any revolutions. The British Empire was originally just a sphere of influence. It had to become an Empire and be garrisoned at great cost, due to other nations growing in power and threatening it.
The UK is firmly within the US sphere of influence. We have many US military bases here. We pretty much do what they say - even on matters that are purely domestic. It's all very civilised and conducted via civilised channels. If however, China developed an ambition to lever us out of the US sphere of influence, and started funding a lot of projects here, building lots of facilities here, signing treaties and working on defence initiatives, that's when we'd see more serious threats, and if we really persisted with leaving the US alliance and opposing their global interests, things would go south very quickly.
The same is true of Russia. It invaded Ukraine when its interests in Ukraine were threatened. It is a deplorable and criminal act, but we haven't seen a conscious choice by the US not to behave in that way - it's just that they haven't had to recently.
That really is false equivalence of the basest kind.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an imperial land grab. They have annexed thousands of square miles of a neighbour’s territory. It is not the same as US disgruntlement if its allies don’t play ball. It’s not even the same as the disgraceful invasion of Iraq, which never went as far as trying to add the territory to the USA.
Many countries have chosen to walk away from the US sphere of influence in the last few decades. Look at NATO members Hungary, or Slovakia, or France with its endless faffing around on the edges of NATO and vetoing of the Iraq war, Egypt and Saudi doing whatever the hell they like or Erdogan playing the Americans like a fiddle. The constant of all of these is that America is not sending hundreds of thousands of troops into those countries because it believes they belong to the USA, and then annexing them as its own territory.
When France24 aren’t accusing the RN of being living demon entities they make some interesting points
Eg macron is now irrelevant. He’s the lamest of lame duck French presidents who called an unnecessary election and has seen it blow up in his face. Whatever happens now, he is a comic figure and will be almost powerless
Quite incredible in itself
Albeit that is the case for most US Presidents too, rarely do they leave office without the opposition party having taken control of Congress.
Indeed it used to be the case in France too eg President Mitterand had a conservative PM, one Jacques Chirac and as President, Chirac then had a Socialist PM, Lionel Jospin. France just reverting to type
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
At risk of being accused of being petty, here's one policy from the Reform Manifesto (calling it a contract doesn't make it less a manifesto).
Reject the influence of the World Economic Forum.
That's one of their 'First 100 days' policies, so it is obviously a critical one.
I have no idea what that influence is, since it doesn't say, or why it is so important.
It's easy to mock, but there's no doubt that the structural effect of forusm like the WEF is more coordinated, top-down policy initiatives, with the same ideas simultaneously being pushed in multiple countries.
I'm genuinely not mocking that one, I didn't know what it meant in practical terms (given it was given as a 100 day priority) or why the apparent influence was so significant, since it doesn't explain it.
The Reform manifesto being short and punchy is better in most respects (and the 100 day priority vs longer term policy presentation is useful), Labour's droned on and on for 130 pages and yet contained very few non-vague policies, but I could have used a little more info.
Stacked Regression and Poststratification (SRP) and Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) differ in the way they make predictions. The main difference is that the former uses more than one model, including but not limited to Multilevel Regression, to make predictions whilst the latter relies solely on the Multilevel Regression model. The second major difference is that SRP uses non-parametric Machine Learning Models as part of its architecture which offers advantages over parametric alternatives.
The use of stacking, combining estimates from many models into a single final estimate, underpins algorithms like Random Forests and Neural Networks. The main advantage of this kind of stacking is that we can use different models to probe different parts of the data giving a more holistic set of predictions that consider many different facets of the data. This includes models that are superior at unpicking the constituency level predictors whilst other models can investigate the individual level effects in much more detail. Some models, like Multilevel Regression, can analyse both the individual level and constituency level data simultaneously. The combination of these models then produces estimates that more accurately represent the nuances in the underlying data.
The majority of models used in our stacking procedure are “non-parametric”. One of the major inputs that goes into any MRP is the underlying structure of the model that link the predictors chosen by the modeller to the vote intention of individuals. This underlying structure is ultimately arbitrary and there are theoretically many trillions of possible underlying models that could be used. This is what makes MRP parametric – the modeller decides the interactions and relationship. Furthermore, MRP is inherently linear (unless otherwise specified) which can ignore more complex relationships in the data. A non-parametric model, like a random forest, can approximate the true underlying relationship that links the predictor variables to vote intention without input from the modeller. All the modeller does is select the variables used for prediction.
This offers obvious advantages. It reduces the number of assumptions that the modeller has to make in terms of selecting the parameterisation of the model whilst also allowing the model to find the best possible, arbitrary, combination of parameters.
The inclusion of multiple non-parametric models offers advantages to making seat estimates as it hugely reduces the effect of modeller-based decisions. It also offers improved accuracy in terms of fitting the underlying data and uses the most up-to-date methods for classification problems.
TLDR: They don’t know which model is correct so they run a number of different models, average them together, and hope for the best?
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
When France24 aren’t accusing the RN of being living demon entities they make some interesting points
Eg macron is now irrelevant. He’s the lamest of lame duck French presidents who called an unnecessary election and has seen it blow up in his face. Whatever happens now, he is a comic figure and will be almost powerless
Quite incredible in itself
Albeit that is the case for most US Presidents too, rarely do they leave office without the opposition party having taken control of Congress.
Indeed it used to be the case in France too eg President Mitterand had a conservative PM, one Jacques Chirac and as President, Chirac then had a Socialist PM, Lionel Jospin. France just reverting to type
Stacked Regression and Poststratification (SRP) and Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) differ in the way they make predictions. The main difference is that the former uses more than one model, including but not limited to Multilevel Regression, to make predictions whilst the latter relies solely on the Multilevel Regression model. The second major difference is that SRP uses non-parametric Machine Learning Models as part of its architecture which offers advantages over parametric alternatives.
The use of stacking, combining estimates from many models into a single final estimate, underpins algorithms like Random Forests and Neural Networks. The main advantage of this kind of stacking is that we can use different models to probe different parts of the data giving a more holistic set of predictions that consider many different facets of the data. This includes models that are superior at unpicking the constituency level predictors whilst other models can investigate the individual level effects in much more detail. Some models, like Multilevel Regression, can analyse both the individual level and constituency level data simultaneously. The combination of these models then produces estimates that more accurately represent the nuances in the underlying data.
The majority of models used in our stacking procedure are “non-parametric”. One of the major inputs that goes into any MRP is the underlying structure of the model that link the predictors chosen by the modeller to the vote intention of individuals. This underlying structure is ultimately arbitrary and there are theoretically many trillions of possible underlying models that could be used. This is what makes MRP parametric – the modeller decides the interactions and relationship. Furthermore, MRP is inherently linear (unless otherwise specified) which can ignore more complex relationships in the data. A non-parametric model, like a random forest, can approximate the true underlying relationship that links the predictor variables to vote intention without input from the modeller. All the modeller does is select the variables used for prediction.
This offers obvious advantages. It reduces the number of assumptions that the modeller has to make in terms of selecting the parameterisation of the model whilst also allowing the model to find the best possible, arbitrary, combination of parameters.
The inclusion of multiple non-parametric models offers advantages to making seat estimates as it hugely reduces the effect of modeller-based decisions. It also offers improved accuracy in terms of fitting the underlying data and uses the most up-to-date methods for classification problems.
TLDR: They don’t know which model is correct so they run a number of different models, average them together, and hope for the best?
Sounds like a monte carlo simulation with extra steps.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I don't think one ship counts as a battle, and the question was about "gunfire"
Add the attacks on the French Navy in harbour. And First Sirte.
I'll give you First Sirte.
But I'll Appeal Mers-el-Kebir on the basis that (1) the forces were French not Axis as specified which I think holds, and which I think also holds (2) that Swordfish torpedo and mining planes were involved, which hit an ammo ship, which blew up and crippled a battleship *.
* Just like "Welcome to Town" sign in Destry Rides Again.
It's an interewsting question whether any *antiaircraft* gunnery - including the secondary armament in some cases, such as on US battleships with their twin 5 inch/38 cal Mark 12 mountings - was powerful enough to be decisive in any engagements that count as battles. Some of the Divine Wind attacks on the USN in 1944-45 could count, but the fighter aircraft were also involved.
And did anyone mention Denmark Strait? (I might have missed it.)
The US response to France leaving Nato in 1968 can be contrasted with The Soviet Union's response to Czechoslovakia leaving the Warsaw pact in the same year.
In the end we all know it as North Korea that attacked the South and North Vietnam that attacked the South with Chinese and Soviet support respectively.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
Though actually French Muslims are very supportive of French institutions, even ones like police and judicial system that give them a hard time.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I’ve been thinking about this. What final stunt is a. exciting enough, b. connected to a policy goal or political point, c. safe? Something for this Tuesday that tells people “yes, fuck it, I’m going Lib Dem this time. Why not”.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
This is possible.
There was a 3.5m shark in Bournemouth on Thursday.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
The French answer is becoming clearer. Stop Muslim immigration and make it much harder to be conservative Muslim in France
I predict other European countries will follow this in time (I am extrapolating). That is why I think it is somewhat like the French Revolution - that changed European and global politics as other countries either copied it or reacted against
However France is much less important now, relatively - so the comparison with 1789 is only partial
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
Though actually French Muslims are very supportive of French institutions, even ones like police and judicial system that give them a hard time.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
Hold on. That map seems to show that where our roving reporter, @Leon, has spent all week breathlessly reporting from sports bars that it is LePen all the way, actually support the Left.
What are you fucking talking about you dull twat
I spoke about ONE town. Called Guingamp. Go check the map. It voted Le Pen
Ok. Fair point. But only just. Looks quite split to me.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The US response to France leaving Nato in 1968 can be contrasted with The Soviet Union's response to Czechoslovakia leaving the Warsaw pact in the same year.
In the end we all know it as North Korea that attacked the South and North Vietnam that attacked the South with Chinese and Soviet support respectively.
Though it was the USA that instigated a coup in Chile, Iran and the 1965 massacres of Communists and fellow travellers in Indonesia.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
Surely you're perceptive enough to see that the two things are different merely by degree. Holding another country within one's sphere of influence is very easy - you dictate policy, but you don't have to build any railways or put down any revolutions. The British Empire was originally just a sphere of influence. It had to become an Empire and be garrisoned at great cost, due to other nations growing in power and threatening it.
The UK is firmly within the US sphere of influence. We have many US military bases here. We pretty much do what they say - even on matters that are purely domestic. It's all very civilised and conducted via civilised channels. If however, China developed an ambition to lever us out of the US sphere of influence, and started funding a lot of projects here, building lots of facilities here, signing treaties and working on defence initiatives, that's when we'd see more serious threats, and if we really persisted with leaving the US alliance and opposing their global interests, things would go south very quickly.
The same is true of Russia. It invaded Ukraine when its interests in Ukraine were threatened. It is a deplorable and criminal act, but we haven't seen a conscious choice by the US not to behave in that way - it's just that they haven't had to recently.
That really is false equivalence of the basest kind.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an imperial land grab. They have annexed thousands of square miles of a neighbour’s territory. It is not the same as US disgruntlement if its allies don’t play ball. It’s not even the same as the disgraceful invasion of Iraq, which never went as far as trying to add the territory to the USA.
Many countries have chosen to walk away from the US sphere of influence in the last few decades. Look at NATO members Hungary, or Slovakia, or France with its endless faffing around on the edges of NATO and vetoing of the Iraq war, Egypt and Saudi doing whatever the hell they like or Erdogan playing the Americans like a fiddle. The constant of all of these is that America is not sending hundreds of thousands of troops into those countries because it believes they belong to the USA, and then annexing them as its own territory.
Yup. Countries have left (various bits of) NATO - met with “OK then”.
When New Zealand did their nuclear free zone thing, the American reaction was to…. Not send warships with nuclear weapons on board to New Zealand visits.
Stacked Regression and Poststratification (SRP) and Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) differ in the way they make predictions. The main difference is that the former uses more than one model, including but not limited to Multilevel Regression, to make predictions whilst the latter relies solely on the Multilevel Regression model. The second major difference is that SRP uses non-parametric Machine Learning Models as part of its architecture which offers advantages over parametric alternatives.
The use of stacking, combining estimates from many models into a single final estimate, underpins algorithms like Random Forests and Neural Networks. The main advantage of this kind of stacking is that we can use different models to probe different parts of the data giving a more holistic set of predictions that consider many different facets of the data. This includes models that are superior at unpicking the constituency level predictors whilst other models can investigate the individual level effects in much more detail. Some models, like Multilevel Regression, can analyse both the individual level and constituency level data simultaneously. The combination of these models then produces estimates that more accurately represent the nuances in the underlying data.
The majority of models used in our stacking procedure are “non-parametric”. One of the major inputs that goes into any MRP is the underlying structure of the model that link the predictors chosen by the modeller to the vote intention of individuals. This underlying structure is ultimately arbitrary and there are theoretically many trillions of possible underlying models that could be used. This is what makes MRP parametric – the modeller decides the interactions and relationship. Furthermore, MRP is inherently linear (unless otherwise specified) which can ignore more complex relationships in the data. A non-parametric model, like a random forest, can approximate the true underlying relationship that links the predictor variables to vote intention without input from the modeller. All the modeller does is select the variables used for prediction.
This offers obvious advantages. It reduces the number of assumptions that the modeller has to make in terms of selecting the parameterisation of the model whilst also allowing the model to find the best possible, arbitrary, combination of parameters.
The inclusion of multiple non-parametric models offers advantages to making seat estimates as it hugely reduces the effect of modeller-based decisions. It also offers improved accuracy in terms of fitting the underlying data and uses the most up-to-date methods for classification problems.
TLDR: They don’t know which model is correct so they run a number of different models, average them together, and hope for the best?
Had a look at a few of the rural Scottish projections. Complete tosh tbh.
By the way there’s a category 4 hurricane - Beryl - in the Caribbean. In June.
Not climate change (last time it happened was 1933), but the effects of a strong La Niña signal and very warm SSTs - the latter enhanced by global warming but not the proximate cause of the early hurricane season.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I don't think one ship counts as a battle, and the question was about "gunfire"
Add the attacks on the French Navy in harbour. And First Sirte.
I'll give you First Sirte.
But I'll Appeal Mers-el-Kebir on the basis that (1) the forces were French not Axis as specified which I think holds, and which I think also holds (2) that Swordfish torpedo and mining planes were involved, which hit an ammo ship, which blew up and crippled a battleship *.
* Just like "Welcome to Town" sign in Destry Rides Again.
It's an interewsting question whether any *antiaircraft* gunnery - including the secondary armament in some cases, such as on US battleships with their twin 5 inch/38 cal Mark 12 mountings - was powerful enough to be decisive in any engagements that count as battles. Some of the Divine Wind attacks on the USN in 1944-45 could count, but the fighter aircraft were also involved.
And did anyone mention Denmark Strait? (I might have missed it.)
Hiei got monstered by a storm of smaller shells. Including quite a lot of 5”.
The US response to France leaving Nato in 1968 can be contrasted with The Soviet Union's response to Czechoslovakia leaving the Warsaw pact in the same year.
In the end we all know it as North Korea that attacked the South and North Vietnam that attacked the South with Chinese and Soviet support respectively.
Though it was the USA that instigated a coup in Chile, Iran and the 1965 massacres of Communists and fellow travellers in Indonesia.
The Cold War was not one sided.
Not entirely no. But one side was clearly far worse than the other as even Eric Hobsbawn(!!!) finally noted. And I suspect if the Soviet Union had not be so ghastly the Americans might not have been so belligerent in reaction.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
Though actually French Muslims are very supportive of French institutions, even ones like police and judicial system that give them a hard time.
Not really. Each of our countries has a differing relationship with our former Empires. After all Algeria was part of Metropolitan France until 1962, so as intimate with the hexagon as Ireland is to Great Britain.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Rural areas are always more rightwing than the rest of the nation.
On Thursday the rump of Tory MPs remaining are likely to mainly represent rural areas and small market towns and even Clacton where Farage is likely to win includes a few rural villages like Weeley and St Osyth
Canada says hi.
Just come back from a weekend in the Wye valley (North Herefordshire bit just west of Hereford). Lots of Green posters around (Ellie Cohen?) the odd Labour poster, no Conservative but some very large Reform posters ("No Farmers. No food. Vote Reform")
Looking at the ERPs it looks like Con will hold with Greens in second place but it might be a close run thing.
Not sure if that supports the rural right wing hypothesis...
Chowns.
Rural right wing, isnt all immigrants and Pollution for Profit. They like their wildlife and tradition; respect neighbours, like to be polite, support small and sustainable businesses, look after the environment, and would happily renationalise the railways.
A bit of fast broadband wouldn’t go amiss either.
The crossover with the greens is not insubstantial.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Apart from the two thirds who don't, on tonight's results.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
Though actually French Muslims are very supportive of French institutions, even ones like police and judicial system that give them a hard time.
Not really. Each of our countries has a differing relationship with our former Empires. After all Algeria was part of Metropolitan France until 1962, so as intimate with the hexagon as Ireland is to Great Britain.
But the point is you still have no answers to offer on what either country should do regards non-integrated muslims.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Rural areas are always more rightwing than the rest of the nation.
On Thursday the rump of Tory MPs remaining are likely to mainly represent rural areas and small market towns and even Clacton where Farage is likely to win includes a few rural villages like Weeley and St Osyth
Canada says hi.
Just come back from a weekend in the Wye valley (North Herefordshire bit just west of Hereford). Lots of Green posters around (Ellie Cohen?) the odd Labour poster, no Conservative but some very large Reform posters ("No Farmers. No food. Vote Reform")
Looking at the ERPs it looks like Con will hold with Greens in second place but it might be a close run thing.
Not sure if that supports the rural right wing hypothesis...
If the Tories hold it it does, indeed your tour suggests rural areas prefer even the Greens to Labour with rightwing populist Reform also doing well (and Hereford city itself had a LD MP in 1997)
Hold on. That map seems to show that where our roving reporter, @Leon, has spent all week breathlessly reporting from sports bars that it is LePen all the way, actually support the Left.
What are you fucking talking about you dull twat
I spoke about ONE town. Called Guingamp. Go check the map. It voted Le Pen
Ok. Fair point. But only just. Looks quite split to me.
And I may be a twat but I'm not dull.
Hah. Fair play you were polite in response to my sourness. I just get weary of being mischaracterised. Apologies for snapping
I really do try to report honestly what I see - and Guingamp was fascinating. You are quite right it is wildly divided - I saw that there: far left posters ripped down then far right graffiti then further left wing graffiti over that etc etc
Elsewhere in France the election has been invisible this week. But not in that town
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I’ve been thinking about this. What final stunt is a. exciting enough, b. connected to a policy goal or political point, c. safe? Something for this Tuesday that tells people “yes, fuck it, I’m going Lib Dem this time. Why not”.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
This is possible.
There was a 3.5m shark in Bournemouth on Thursday.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Apart from the two thirds who don't, on tonight's results.
But what will the second round reveal about what they want? 2 and more cycles ago it was enough to pretty much lock them out entirely, but times are clearly very different now.
Saône et Loire not counted yet. I’m assuming left wins in the Mâconnais, or possibly Ensemble.
These result are a big success for the far right but:
- RN/FN candidates have got in the 40s in presidential elections. This feels a bit less momentous than that - There are 2 rounds so the biggest (and most shocking) score for RN will be in the second round - It’s not the presidential so not quite as emotive as that. Ref congressional elections in the US
My parents are in our place in France at the moment and remarked on how low key the whole thing is compared with British or other elections. Scarcely anything.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
Though actually French Muslims are very supportive of French institutions, even ones like police and judicial system that give them a hard time.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
At some point European countries are going to have to find answer to the growing islamist populations.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
Though actually French Muslims are very supportive of French institutions, even ones like police and judicial system that give them a hard time.
So the French polling looks about right, or very slightly undercooked for Le Pen?
Haven't the centre-right done slightly better than expected, 10% vs 6-7%
The centre right establishment have effectively done a deal with Macron's party not to challenge each other in seats where they are best placed to beat Le Pen's RN party or Melenchon's leftist block
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Apart from the two thirds who don't, on tonight's results.
Are you going to apply the same analysis to the ~ 60% of people who won't want Starmer in charge in a week's time ?
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I don't think one ship counts as a battle, and the question was about "gunfire"
Add the attacks on the French Navy in harbour. And First Sirte.
I'll give you First Sirte.
But I'll Appeal Mers-el-Kebir on the basis that (1) the forces were French not Axis as specified which I think holds, and which I think also holds (2) that Swordfish torpedo and mining planes were involved, which hit an ammo ship, which blew up and crippled a battleship *.
* Just like "Welcome to Town" sign in Destry Rides Again.
It's an interewsting question whether any *antiaircraft* gunnery - including the secondary armament in some cases, such as on US battleships with their twin 5 inch/38 cal Mark 12 mountings - was powerful enough to be decisive in any engagements that count as battles. Some of the Divine Wind attacks on the USN in 1944-45 could count, but the fighter aircraft were also involved.
And did anyone mention Denmark Strait? (I might have missed it.)
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I don't think one ship counts as a battle, and the question was about "gunfire"
Add the attacks on the French Navy in harbour. And First Sirte.
I'll give you First Sirte.
But I'll Appeal Mers-el-Kebir on the basis that (1) the forces were French not Axis as specified which I think holds, and which I think also holds (2) that Swordfish torpedo and mining planes were involved, which hit an ammo ship, which blew up and crippled a battleship *.
* Just like "Welcome to Town" sign in Destry Rides Again.
It's an interewsting question whether any *antiaircraft* gunnery - including the secondary armament in some cases, such as on US battleships with their twin 5 inch/38 cal Mark 12 mountings - was powerful enough to be decisive in any engagements that count as battles. Some of the Divine Wind attacks on the USN in 1944-45 could count, but the fighter aircraft were also involved.
And did anyone mention Denmark Strait? (I might have missed it.)
Hiei got monstered by a storm of smaller shells. Including quite a lot of 5”.
In total, Hiei had been struck by at least 85 American 8”, 6”, and 5” shells as well as hundreds of smaller caliber shells. Hiei was also struck by nine torpedoes from the US destroyers Cushing, O’Bannon, Monssen, and Sterett (though most, if not all probably failed to explode). [..] Kirishima attempted to tow Hiei to safety, but water flooded Hiei's steering compartments, jamming her rudder to starboard and forcing her to steer in circles. Throughout the morning of 13 November, Hiei was subjected to attack from American Army B-17 Flying Fortress bombers. She continued circling to starboard at 5 knots (5.8 mph).[32] At 11:30, three torpedoes launched from Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo-bombers struck Hiei.,[5] and after landing and rearming at Henderson field, the torpedo planes from the USS Enterprise hit the battleship with three more torpedoes.[35] The combined attacks by both the B-17s and strike aircraft from Henderson Field inflicted a total of 5-8 torpedo hits and 7-8 500 lb and 1000 lb bomb hits on the stricken battleship in addition to the damage from the night surface battle.[33] Her crew was ordered to abandon ship, and her escorting destroyers scuttled her with torpedoes.[36] Hiei sank sometime in the evening on 13 November with the loss of 188 of her crew; the first battleship lost by Japan during World War II.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Apart from the two thirds who don't, on tonight's results.
Are you going to apply the same analysis to the ~ 60% of people who won't want Starmer in charge in a week's time ?
France24 English has now got politicians in to discuss the election and every single one is from a centre or left wing party and they are all saying that the key thing is defeating the evil disgusting far right
Wtaf. It makes me treasure the bbc - at least they invite Farage on tv
This is incredible. French tax payers pay for this. The bias is open and visceral. It’s like watching Fox News but it’s french, state owned and determinedly left wing
France24 English has now got politicians in to discuss the election and every single one is from a centre or left wing party and they are all saying that the key thing is defeating the evil disgusting far right
Wtaf. It makes me treasure the bbc - at least they invite Farage on tv
This is incredible. French tax payers pay for this. The bias is open and visceral. It’s like watching Fox News but it’s french, state owned and determinedly left wing
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Apart from the two thirds who don't, on tonight's results.
Are you going to apply the same analysis to the ~ 60% of people who won't want Starmer in charge in a week's time ?
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Actually, I'd turn it around slightly.
France is deeply fucked, because 34% of people want Le Pen, 28% of people want crazy Left Wingers (just five percentage points below Le Pen), and only about a third of people want someone else. And even this other third include people who want other crazies.
Now, I'm not particularly scared by Ms Le Pen being a crazy right winger, largely because her policies aren't particularly crazy or right wing.
But I do worry about the French economy if someone gets in charge whose prescription for economic issues is rather Jeremy Corbyn. France under Mme Le Pen would be all about subsidies to French "champions", rather than about competition and innovation. It's like someone suffering from liver disease, and thinking the solution is more alcohol.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I’ve been thinking about this. What final stunt is a. exciting enough, b. connected to a policy goal or political point, c. safe? Something for this Tuesday that tells people “yes, fuck it, I’m going Lib Dem this time. Why not”.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
This is possible.
There was a 3.5m shark in Bournemouth on Thursday.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
I don't think we should fear RN winning a majority and/or the French Presidency, even for those of us that are liberals that oppose Le Pen's policies. Democracy is about countries trying out new ideas and seeing if they work in practice. Given France's recent history of quickly learning to hate whoever is in power, I'd be amazed if things didn't swing back before long. And I don't think she is a threat to democracy in the way Trump is.
My one point of real concern is RN's previous friendliness to Putin. France probably has the best military in the EU and is influential on such matters. A softening of the pro-Ukraine position would be very unhelpful in a world where Europe needs to step up to fill the gap left by a Trump presidency. Maybe Le Pen has learnt her lesson there. We'll see.
In any case, we can definitively conclude that Macron's election gamble is going about as well as Sunak's, except much much worse given he had no need to call it for three years.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Apart from the two thirds who don't, on tonight's results.
Are you going to apply the same analysis to the ~ 60% of people who won't want Starmer in charge in a week's time ?
Yes - though 40% is higher than 34%. I'm simply casting doubt on the view that there's an overwhelming tide in France in favour of RN. Just as people (including lefties like me) accept that there's no overwhelming desire for Labour in the UK.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I’ve been thinking about this. What final stunt is a. exciting enough, b. connected to a policy goal or political point, c. safe? Something for this Tuesday that tells people “yes, fuck it, I’m going Lib Dem this time. Why not”.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
This is possible.
There was a 3.5m shark in Bournemouth on Thursday.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
Apart from the two thirds who don't, on tonight's results.
Are you going to apply the same analysis to the ~ 60% of people who won't want Starmer in charge in a week's time ?
Hold on. That map seems to show that where our roving reporter, @Leon, has spent all week breathlessly reporting from sports bars that it is LePen all the way, actually support the Left.
What are you fucking talking about you dull twat
I spoke about ONE town. Called Guingamp. Go check the map. It voted Le Pen
Ok. Fair point. But only just. Looks quite split to me.
And I may be a twat but I'm not dull.
Hah. Fair play you were polite in response to my sourness. I just get weary of being mischaracterised. Apologies for snapping
I really do try to report honestly what I see - and Guingamp was fascinating. You are quite right it is wildly divided - I saw that there: far left posters ripped down then far right graffiti then further left wing graffiti over that etc etc
Elsewhere in France the election has been invisible this week. But not in that town
Sadly, despite what will happen here next week, I fear this kind of deep division is where we are headed in say a decade's time.
I have sent you a proposed article on placing bets on the 2024 election. It is 600 words long. It has had all the personal data removed. It is submitted to you on the condition that you do not breach my anonymity: please accept that or return it unpublished. I hope that you look kindly upon it.
Obviously the French election results indicate a pretty dramatic shift. But I'm not as convinced as others that they are that seismic - it's not as if Le Pen/RN have swept the board. I know it's stating the obvious, but they won just over a third of the votes on a high turnout; two thirds didn't vote for them, and the left was only six points behind. It just doesn't indicate to me a huge passion for RN across all France.
lol! They’ve gone from 10% to 34% in a few years And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
I don't think we should fear RN winning a majority and/or the French Presidency, even for those of us that are liberals that oppose Le Pen's policies. Democracy is about countries trying out new ideas and seeing if they work in practice. Given France's recent history of quickly learning to hate whoever is in power, I'd be amazed if things didn't swing back before long. And I don't think she is a threat to democracy in the way Trump is.
My one point of real concern is RN's previous friendliness to Putin. France probably has the best military in the EU and is influential on such matters. A softening of the pro-Ukraine position would be very unhelpful in a world where Europe needs to step up to fill the gap left by a Trump presidency. Maybe Le Pen has learnt her lesson there. We'll see.
In any case, we can definitively conclude that Macron's election gamble is going about as well as Sunak's, except much much worse given he had no need to call it for three years.
That’s where I am too. I don’t care about their domestic influence, so long as they remain all mouth and no trousers and don’t start doing kristallnachts. Meloni is a reassuring precedent. But the Putin thing is more worrying.
Now the politicians on France24 English are arguing wildly about who is to blame for allowing the rise of the far right, and how they can still crush it somehow, to enforce humanist and gay agendas etc
This is the far right which has just won the election with a sizeable plurality. And they didn’t think to maybe invite an actual politician from RN to give their position, as supported by many millions of French people
I have sent you a proposed article on placing bets on the 2024 election. It is 600 words long. It has had all the personal data removed. It is submitted to you on the condition that you do not breach my anonymity: please accept that or return it unpublished. I hope that you look kindly upon it.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I’ve been thinking about this. What final stunt is a. exciting enough, b. connected to a policy goal or political point, c. safe? Something for this Tuesday that tells people “yes, fuck it, I’m going Lib Dem this time. Why not”.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
This is possible.
There was a 3.5m shark in Bournemouth on Thursday.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
Surely you're perceptive enough to see that the two things are different merely by degree. Holding another country within one's sphere of influence is very easy - you dictate policy, but you don't have to build any railways or put down any revolutions. The British Empire was originally just a sphere of influence. It had to become an Empire and be garrisoned at great cost, due to other nations growing in power and threatening it.
The UK is firmly within the US sphere of influence. We have many US military bases here. We pretty much do what they say - even on matters that are purely domestic. It's all very civilised and conducted via civilised channels. If however, China developed an ambition to lever us out of the US sphere of influence, and started funding a lot of projects here, building lots of facilities here, signing treaties and working on defence initiatives, that's when we'd see more serious threats, and if we really persisted with leaving the US alliance and opposing their global interests, things would go south very quickly.
The same is true of Russia. It invaded Ukraine when its interests in Ukraine were threatened. It is a deplorable and criminal act, but we haven't seen a conscious choice by the US not to behave in that way - it's just that they haven't had to recently.
That really is false equivalence of the basest kind.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an imperial land grab. They have annexed thousands of square miles of a neighbour’s territory. It is not the same as US disgruntlement if its allies don’t play ball. It’s not even the same as the disgraceful invasion of Iraq, which never went as far as trying to add the territory to the USA.
Many countries have chosen to walk away from the US sphere of influence in the last few decades. Look at NATO members Hungary, or Slovakia, or France with its endless faffing around on the edges of NATO and vetoing of the Iraq war, Egypt and Saudi doing whatever the hell they like or Erdogan playing the Americans like a fiddle. The constant of all of these is that America is not sending hundreds of thousands of troops into those countries because it believes they belong to the USA, and then annexing them as its own territory.
Indeed it isn't (though it has absolutely done so in the past - look at Hawaii), but that's because it hasn't been threatened on its borders. The US successfully holds bordering nations (and many others) in its sphere of influence, and therefore has no need to invade them.
Yes, other countries in the world show varying degrees of support for the US, and the US even with its power must obey the laws of what is practicable. But it did remove the Egyptian dictator and replace him with that Muslim Brotherhood ape who kept scratching his balls (then to be overthrown again). The whole Arab Spring was largely an attempt to re-order that part of the Middle East into a more US-friendly stance.
As for Iraq not 'being added to the US', you're still missing the point. It's much better that it isn't added to the US, as long as you can get what you want. Adding territory formally is not a desirable thing to do. It's what you do when threatened - like putting a ring on your girlfriend to stop her going off with someone else.
So the authorities in Tenerife turned down a request for help from Lancashire police, and now they've had to call off a search because not enough people turned up when they asked for volunteers. Really stupid.
Comments
Madame Defage
Looking at the ERPs it looks like Con will hold with Greens in second place but it might be a close run thing.
Not sure if that supports the rural right wing hypothesis...
Eg macron is now irrelevant. He’s the lamest of lame duck French presidents who called an unnecessary election and has seen it blow up in his face. Whatever happens now, he is a comic figure and will be almost powerless
Quite incredible in itself
So millions of French people came out to vote for the first time - and they voted for Le Pen
I think that, secretly, he's a floating voter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66rv2yXVHhc
I spoke about ONE town. Called Guingamp. Go check the map. It voted Le Pen
Cultural purity, get rid of the immigrants infesting the city…. A return to Traditional Athenian Values. But with an upgrade of Discipline.
Sound familiar?
In Paris though so far barely any brown except the outer, outer suburbs. It is all Macron's party and Melenchon's left block leading in Paris, indeed in the capital even the rump centre right Les Republicains are ahead in more seats than RN (presumably leading in a few of the wealthiest parts of Paris still)
There was a 3.5m shark in Bournemouth on Thursday.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13575173/Shocking-moment-shark-appears-just-yards-unwitting-Bournemouth-beachgoers.html
But no Lib Dem targets are really close.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an imperial land grab. They have annexed thousands of square miles of a neighbour’s territory. It is not the same as US disgruntlement if its allies don’t play ball. It’s not even the same as the disgraceful invasion of Iraq, which never went as far as trying to add the territory to the USA.
Many countries have chosen to walk away from the US sphere of influence in the last few decades. Look at NATO members Hungary, or Slovakia, or France with its endless faffing around on the edges of NATO and vetoing of the Iraq war, Egypt and Saudi doing whatever the hell they like or Erdogan playing the Americans like a fiddle. The constant of all of these is that America is not sending hundreds of thousands of troops into those countries because it believes they belong to the USA, and then annexing them as its own territory.
Indeed it used to be the case in France too eg President Mitterand had a conservative PM, one Jacques Chirac and as President, Chirac then had a Socialist PM, Lionel Jospin. France just reverting to type
The Reform manifesto being short and punchy is better in most respects (and the 100 day priority vs longer term policy presentation is useful), Labour's droned on and on for 130 pages and yet contained very few non-vague policies, but I could have used a little more info.
Neither we nor the French seem to have an answer at the moment.
When did Trump have this conversation -“I talked to him about it” - with Putin about invading Ukraine ?
https://x.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1806831577386930495
And did anyone mention Denmark Strait? (I might have missed it.)
In the end we all know it as North Korea that attacked the South and North Vietnam that attacked the South with Chinese and Soviet support respectively.
https://theconversation.com/separatisme-et-si-la-politique-antiterroriste-faisait-fausse-route-149078
I predict other European countries will follow this in time (I am extrapolating). That is why I think it is somewhat like the French Revolution - that changed European and global politics as other countries either copied it or reacted against
However France is much less important now, relatively - so the comparison with 1789 is only partial
And I may be a twat but I'm not dull.
And this new triumph is on a relatively huge turnout
The French WANT this
The Cold War was not one sided.
When New Zealand did their nuclear free zone thing, the American reaction was to…. Not send warships with nuclear weapons on board to New Zealand visits.
Not climate change (last time it happened was 1933), but the effects of a strong La Niña signal and very warm SSTs - the latter enhanced by global warming but not the proximate cause of the early hurricane season.
Our weather gets better from the 9th onwards.
Websites bearing the names of Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman have been registered or updated in recent months, but both deny involvement
Rural right wing, isnt all immigrants and Pollution for Profit. They like their wildlife and tradition; respect neighbours, like to be polite, support small and sustainable businesses, look after the environment, and would happily renationalise the railways.
A bit of fast broadband wouldn’t go amiss either.
The crossover with the greens is not insubstantial.
Angela Rayner 🌹
@AngelaRayner
They'll tell you voting doesn't make a difference.
But it was a Labour Government that changed my life.
If you want change, vote for it on Thursday.
https://x.com/AngelaRayner/status/1807509821400215962
I really do try to report honestly what I see - and Guingamp was fascinating. You are quite right it is wildly divided - I saw that there: far left posters ripped down then far right graffiti then further left wing graffiti over that etc etc
Elsewhere in France the election has been invisible this week. But not in that town
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/30/la-carte-des-resultats-des-legislatives-au-premier-tour-et-le-tableau-des-candidats-qualifies_6245574_4355771.html
Saône et Loire not counted yet. I’m assuming left wins in the Mâconnais, or possibly Ensemble.
These result are a big success for the far right but:
- RN/FN candidates have got in the 40s in presidential elections. This feels a bit less momentous than that
- There are 2 rounds so the biggest (and most shocking) score for RN will be in the second round
- It’s not the presidential so not quite as emotive as that. Ref congressional elections in the US
My parents are in our place in France at the
moment and remarked on how low key the whole thing is compared with British or other elections. Scarcely anything.
[..]
Kirishima attempted to tow Hiei to safety, but water flooded Hiei's steering compartments, jamming her rudder to starboard and forcing her to steer in circles. Throughout the morning of 13 November, Hiei was subjected to attack from American Army B-17 Flying Fortress bombers. She continued circling to starboard at 5 knots (5.8 mph).[32] At 11:30, three torpedoes launched from Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo-bombers struck Hiei.,[5] and after landing and rearming at Henderson field, the torpedo planes from the USS Enterprise hit the battleship with three more torpedoes.[35] The combined attacks by both the B-17s and strike aircraft from Henderson Field inflicted a total of 5-8 torpedo hits and 7-8 500 lb and 1000 lb bomb hits on the stricken battleship in addition to the damage from the night surface battle.[33] Her crew was ordered to abandon ship, and her escorting destroyers scuttled her with torpedoes.[36] Hiei sank sometime in the evening on 13 November with the loss of 188 of her crew; the first battleship lost by Japan during World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Hiei
Wtaf. It makes me treasure the bbc - at least they invite Farage on tv
This is incredible. French tax payers pay for this. The bias is open and visceral. It’s like watching Fox News but it’s french, state owned and determinedly left wing
France is deeply fucked, because 34% of people want Le Pen, 28% of people want crazy Left Wingers (just five percentage points below Le Pen), and only about a third of people want someone else. And even this other third include people who want other crazies.
Now, I'm not particularly scared by Ms Le Pen being a crazy right winger, largely because her policies aren't particularly crazy or right wing.
But I do worry about the French economy if someone gets in charge whose prescription for economic issues is rather Jeremy Corbyn. France under Mme Le Pen would be all about subsidies to French "champions", rather than about competition and innovation. It's like someone suffering from liver disease, and thinking the solution is more alcohol.
Vibes don’t cut it. Him being a bit dull doesn’t therefore mean he will be like Hollande anymore than it means he’ll be like May.
Jaws music?
Where's the Fonz when you need him?
My one point of real concern is RN's previous friendliness to Putin. France probably has the best military in the EU and is influential on such matters. A softening of the pro-Ukraine position would be very unhelpful in a world where Europe needs to step up to fill the gap left by a Trump presidency. Maybe Le Pen has learnt her lesson there. We'll see.
In any case, we can definitively conclude that Macron's election gamble is going about as well as Sunak's, except much much worse given he had no need to call it for three years.
Happy days.
We’re going to need a bigger minibus.
I'm proud of us Brits.
To: @rcs1000, @TheScreamingEagles
Good morning to you both
I have sent you a proposed article on placing bets on the 2024 election. It is 600 words long. It has had all the personal data removed. It is submitted to you on the condition that you do not breach my anonymity: please accept that or return it unpublished. I hope that you look kindly upon it.
Regards, @viewcode
Callous fucker would rather they went hungry? That really boils my piss.
This is the far right which has just won the election with a sizeable plurality. And they didn’t think to maybe invite an actual politician from RN to give their position, as supported by many millions of French people
The answer might be yes to both, making no one look good, but we could still determine one as being worse.
We will review and revert
Thank you
The Mod Team
https://youtu.be/slvGKU7HF6M?t=98
Jive Dancing on a Surfboard with Daisy Cooper jumping over the Bournemouth Shark.
Nailed.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/30/french-election-results-map-of-the-first-round-s-results_6676224_8.html
Yes, other countries in the world show varying degrees of support for the US, and the US even with its power must obey the laws of what is practicable. But it did remove the Egyptian dictator and replace him with that Muslim Brotherhood ape who kept scratching his balls (then to be overthrown again). The whole Arab Spring was largely an attempt to re-order that part of the Middle East into a more US-friendly stance.
As for Iraq not 'being added to the US', you're still missing the point. It's much better that it isn't added to the US, as long as you can get what you want. Adding territory formally is not a desirable thing to do. It's what you do when threatened - like putting a ring on your girlfriend to stop her going off with someone else.
So the authorities in Tenerife turned down a request for help from Lancashire police, and now they've had to call off a search because not enough people turned up when they asked for volunteers. Really stupid.