While it's all getting bad tempered on here, I'm going to tell you a remarkable fact: The UK Air Force that has an F-18 that has been ejected from on two separate occasions, and which is still in service.
Fuck me - for what? How long was she his chief of staff? A week? Its almost worse than Johnson giving one to a blond who may or may not be his daughter or who gave him a 'good time' in Downing Street.
It just adds to the cronyism narrative and time for this nonsense to end
I thought Starmer was above all this but he is no better than Johnson and others in awarding failure
The problem is wider than Starmer (not that I am giving him a free ride here). It’s that the whole Whitehall apparatus is set up (and has been for decades) so that those in and adjacent to power are rewarded by peerages to consolidate the power of the political classes. The HoL was used in this way for centuries to cement the rule of the landed gentry, this is no different - same stuff in a different guise.
To change that would be truly revolutionary and I can’t really say I’m shocked that Starmer has reverted to type.
Starmer wants to abolish the House of Lords.
In the meantime he has to equalise numbers.
Sue Gray is a respected civil servant.
I'd be far more quizzical about what There's Coffey and Toby Young... Toby fucking Young have done to deserve a peerage.
Still nothing trumps Charlotte Johnson.. sorry Owen...
While it's all getting bad tempered on here, I'm going to tell you a remarkable fact: The UK Air Force that has an F-18 that has been ejected from on two separate occasions, and which is still in service.
And, no, these were not stationary tests.
Canadian, Shirley?
IIRC Martin Baker are still using a couple of twin seat Meteor jets for ejection seat tests. They surely must have (or be near the record) for the number of ejections from a particular aircraft?
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
I might suggest that his currently-stated ideas for 'peace' in Ukraine is music to Putin's ears. As are his threats towards NATO.
Trump's threats to NATO are purely monetary. He wants European countries to pay their own way, which is a very fair position to hold.
They're not remotely purely monetary. Sure, he thinks that some European states are getting a free ride and are not contributing sufficiently - and he has a point there.
But in terms of the fundamental purpose of Nato, he opposes it. If push came to shove, he'd try to cut a deal rather than take action.
Trump is a dodgy businessman. He understands deals. He understands bribery, blackmail, intimidation and lawfare. He does not understand why the US should go to war on behalf of another country - and particularly one that isn't paying for it. He never will. He sees US troops abroad solely as mercenaries who should be returning an income.
But the point is that if Europe resolved the monetary issue and actually paid for it's own defence the thought of a Russian incursion would be ridiculous. That the likes of Germany have spend half of the already too low target for two decades is why the Russians are even capable of taking on European countries in our backyard.
If we want Trump to understand why the US should go to war for another country then we should first get other European nations to understand why we should go to war. It's completely hypocritical to expect the US to bail out rich nations across the EU when it comes to defending out territory and frankly, I'm on Trump's side to some extent. We need to be able to look after our own and not rely on another country to do it for us. This isn't WW2 and a fight for survival, this is a minor territorial incursion that European NATO countries should have been able to repel back in 2014 in alliance with Ukraine to put Putin back in his box but we have neither the capability nor the will to spend our blood and treasure doing so. Suggesting that Trump is uniquely bad for not wanting to spend American blood and treasure on defending foreign territory not in his backyard is simply ridiculous.
That's not what I'm saying though, is it?
Trump would not join in an alliance campaign against an attack on a Nato member, whether or not it was paying a sensible amount for its defence (which isn't a condition in the Treaty anyway).
Europe, including the UK, should be spending more and should be spending it better. It should also rely more on its own industrial production - including jet fighters and nuclear capacity.
Anyway, it's not just Trump: the US as a whole is turning away from Europe, and not without reason. While the two sides of the Atlantic have good reason to remain aligned and allied, Europe does need to care more for its own defence and prepare for a future without America.
I think this is somewhat overblown.
America and Europe are first world countries that share similar interests in democracy, trade and the liberal order - with lots of shared cultural roots, however distant.
America isn't going to close the door on Europe. It just (a) doesn't want it to have a completely free ride, and (b) needs to focus more of its resources on the Pacific - where Europe isn't, and no-one else is apart from the USA.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
I might suggest that his currently-stated ideas for 'peace' in Ukraine is music to Putin's ears. As are his threats towards NATO.
Trump's threats to NATO are purely monetary. He wants European countries to pay their own way, which is a very fair position to hold.
They're not remotely purely monetary. Sure, he thinks that some European states are getting a free ride and are not contributing sufficiently - and he has a point there.
But in terms of the fundamental purpose of Nato, he opposes it. If push came to shove, he'd try to cut a deal rather than take action.
Trump is a dodgy businessman. He understands deals. He understands bribery, blackmail, intimidation and lawfare. He does not understand why the US should go to war on behalf of another country - and particularly one that isn't paying for it. He never will. He sees US troops abroad solely as mercenaries who should be returning an income.
But the point is that if Europe resolved the monetary issue and actually paid for it's own defence the thought of a Russian incursion would be ridiculous. That the likes of Germany have spend half of the already too low target for two decades is why the Russians are even capable of taking on European countries in our backyard.
If we want Trump to understand why the US should go to war for another country then we should first get other European nations to understand why we should go to war. It's completely hypocritical to expect the US to bail out rich nations across the EU when it comes to defending out territory and frankly, I'm on Trump's side to some extent. We need to be able to look after our own and not rely on another country to do it for us. This isn't WW2 and a fight for survival, this is a minor territorial incursion that European NATO countries should have been able to repel back in 2014 in alliance with Ukraine to put Putin back in his box but we have neither the capability nor the will to spend our blood and treasure doing so. Suggesting that Trump is uniquely bad for not wanting to spend American blood and treasure on defending foreign territory not in his backyard is simply ridiculous.
German non-rearmament was a post-ww2 thing. And post-ww1. Germany was seen as a warmongering nation for most of its short existence.
America saw itself as leader of the free world, and defender of freedom and democracy. Trump's isolationist nationalism goes against the American post-war consensus.
Back in 1990, the Bundeswehr was a top class army.
And West German miltary spending during the Cold War was 3-5% of GDP.
Fuck me - for what? How long was she his chief of staff? A week? Its almost worse than Johnson giving one to a blond who may or may not be his daughter or who gave him a 'good time' in Downing Street.
It just adds to the cronyism narrative and time for this nonsense to end
I thought Starmer was above all this but he is no better than Johnson and others in awarding failure
The problem is wider than Starmer (not that I am giving him a free ride here). It’s that the whole Whitehall apparatus is set up (and has been for decades) so that those in and adjacent to power are rewarded by peerages to consolidate the power of the political classes. The HoL was used in this way for centuries to cement the rule of the landed gentry, this is no different - same stuff in a different guise.
To change that would be truly revolutionary and I can’t really say I’m shocked that Starmer has reverted to type.
I forget which ministers memoir - but between being appointed and getting to his desk, a senior civil servant took a decision that went again his (the ministers) expressed views, cost money and wasn’t required to be done urgently, either.
The minister relates that for the rest of his tenure, the next gong for said civil servant was bought up repeatedly. Apparently it wa jolly unfair not to give it to him.
While it's all getting bad tempered on here, I'm going to tell you a remarkable fact: The UK Air Force that has an F-18 that has been ejected from on two separate occasions, and which is still in service.
(The Meteor is one of my favourite aircraft. It just looks right.)
There is a POV that says planes that look wrong are great. The Stuka, the Victor, the Harrier, the Phantom, the Fokker Triplane, all look like somebody dropped them and glued the broken pieces in the wrong place. It's a stupid POV, but occasionally worth trotting out.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
I might suggest that his currently-stated ideas for 'peace' in Ukraine is music to Putin's ears. As are his threats towards NATO.
Trump's threats to NATO are purely monetary. He wants European countries to pay their own way, which is a very fair position to hold.
They're not remotely purely monetary. Sure, he thinks that some European states are getting a free ride and are not contributing sufficiently - and he has a point there.
But in terms of the fundamental purpose of Nato, he opposes it. If push came to shove, he'd try to cut a deal rather than take action.
Trump is a dodgy businessman. He understands deals. He understands bribery, blackmail, intimidation and lawfare. He does not understand why the US should go to war on behalf of another country - and particularly one that isn't paying for it. He never will. He sees US troops abroad solely as mercenaries who should be returning an income.
But the point is that if Europe resolved the monetary issue and actually paid for it's own defence the thought of a Russian incursion would be ridiculous. That the likes of Germany have spend half of the already too low target for two decades is why the Russians are even capable of taking on European countries in our backyard.
If we want Trump to understand why the US should go to war for another country then we should first get other European nations to understand why we should go to war. It's completely hypocritical to expect the US to bail out rich nations across the EU when it comes to defending out territory and frankly, I'm on Trump's side to some extent. We need to be able to look after our own and not rely on another country to do it for us. This isn't WW2 and a fight for survival, this is a minor territorial incursion that European NATO countries should have been able to repel back in 2014 in alliance with Ukraine to put Putin back in his box but we have neither the capability nor the will to spend our blood and treasure doing so. Suggesting that Trump is uniquely bad for not wanting to spend American blood and treasure on defending foreign territory not in his backyard is simply ridiculous.
German non-rearmament was a post-ww2 thing. And post-ww1. Germany was seen as a warmongering nation for most of its short existence.
America saw itself as leader of the free world, and defender of freedom and democracy. Trump's isolationist nationalism goes against the American post-war consensus.
Back in 1990, the Bundeswehr was a top class army.
And West German miltary spending during the Cold War was 3-5% of GDP.
Yup. Which was why they have warehouses stuffed full of slightly rusty stuff from 1987.
You know you’re getting old when friends start getting peerages
That kind of stink usually sets in a year before the government expects to lose. No idea what Starmer is playing at, it looks corrupt and for no gain.
"I think most people will look at Sue Gray's record and think 'fair dos'".
It really does begin to look like quid pro quo for Sue Grey burying the Boris government with the party gate inquiry. It might not be but it does look like it now and the Tories need to start "asking questions" about it across the media and implicating Starmer as corrupt and having a hand in what they can turn into a tainted inquiry that was a set up by Labour to make the Tories look bad.
Perhaps it does, but I don't see the Tories pursuing that line particularly hard?
Speaking of Boris, he should be the Tories' candidate for Mayor of London.
You don't think he's Yesterday's Man now?
Yes, but he's the nearest thing they have to a star, and he's the only one I can think of who can get a good proportion of the Reform vote back, without which they are sunk. Last time out there wasn't a significant Reform presence and they were sunk anyway. *Big star *People can imagine him running London because he did. And they were better times. *Will grab back some Reformers *But still sort of straddles right wing and liberal/centrist politics
He's the only one for all those reasons. Just whether he will. If he doesn't the Tories are toast and will come behind Reform (who will also lose).
While it's all getting bad tempered on here, I'm going to tell you a remarkable fact: The UK Air Force that has an F-18 that has been ejected from on two separate occasions, and which is still in service.
And, no, these were not stationary tests.
Hold on... "UK" Air Force? Which owns precisely zero F18s? Did you mean USAF? Or whichever branch flies F18s off carriers? (USN presumably? I know USMC flies/flew Harriers, but Top Gun was USN, so... )
While it's all getting bad tempered on here, I'm going to tell you a remarkable fact: The UK Air Force that has an F-18 that has been ejected from on two separate occasions, and which is still in service.
And, no, these were not stationary tests.
That is remarkable. I didn't think we had any F18s.
Presumably if its Peston it means that Labour has never been more united...
Peston has turned in to a complete tool. His ridiculous dress sense, affected speech manner and condescending tone.
If he's listening to Abbot, Long-Bailey, Sultana and Co hes even more out of touch than I imagined.
Badenoch is far more at risk than Starmer.The Tories are fighting literally amongst themselves in Oldham example fist fight between leader and deputy leader of Oldham Council.
There is far more disquiet between Lowe and Tice against Farage if you listen to informed sources. Ben Habib is not the only pissed off Reformer.
Farage has made a very very serious enemy in Tommy Robinson and may hope he remains inside for as long as possible.
Cheap pre Christmas over alcololified crap from Peston.
Everyone knows Labour are utterly crap at changing Leaders against Leaders will.... Starmer is there until he decides to leave or the day that the electorate kick him out.
You know you’re getting old when friends start getting peerages
That kind of stink usually sets in a year before the government expects to lose. No idea what Starmer is playing at, it looks corrupt and for no gain.
"I think most people will look at Sue Gray's record and think 'fair dos'".
It really does begin to look like quid pro quo for Sue Grey burying the Boris government with the party gate inquiry. It might not be but it does look like it now and the Tories need to start "asking questions" about it across the media and implicating Starmer as corrupt and having a hand in what they can turn into a tainted inquiry that was a set up by Labour to make the Tories look bad.
Perhaps it does, but I don't see the Tories pursuing that line particularly hard?
Speaking of Boris, he should be the Tories' candidate for Mayor of London.
You don't think he's Yesterday's Man now?
Yes, but he's the nearest thing they have to a star, and he's the only one I can think of who can get a good proportion of the Reform vote back, without which they are sunk. Last time out there wasn't a significant Reform presence and they were sunk anyway. *Big star *People can imagine him running London because he did. And they were better times. *Will grab back some Reformers *But still sort of straddles right wing and liberal/centrist politics
He's the only one for all those reasons. Just whether he will. If he doesn't the Tories are toast and will come behind Reform (who will also lose).
I wouldn't be too surprised the if the Tories came in third even if he did stand. I suspect his goods are too damaged now.
But I'm not in London, and don't follow London politics closely, so could be wrong.
7 bits of bad news rushed out as Parliament breaks up for Christmas
Headings as below; visit website for details
1. Cash 'clearly not' going to fix all potholes 2. NHS staff hit with hefty parking bills 3. WASPI women 'betrayed' 4. PM admits it will 'take time' for people to feel better off 5. Surveys reveal people worried about cost of living 6. 'Bonkers' water bills increase 7. *Another* consultation launched https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/7-bits-bad-news-rushed-34349714
While it's all getting bad tempered on here, I'm going to tell you a remarkable fact: The UK Air Force that has an F-18 that has been ejected from on two separate occasions, and which is still in service.
And, no, these were not stationary tests.
Canadian, Shirley?
IIRC Martin Baker are still using a couple of twin seat Meteor jets for ejection seat tests. They surely must have (or be near the record) for the number of ejections from a particular aircraft?
Quite right, Canadian Air Force
...which brings to one of my odder anecdotes. Most countries separate their forces into different branches, so the US has Army, Navy, Marines, Air, Space, Coastguard. China is I think united under one force, so the people who fly planes off Chinese carriers are the People's Liberation Army's Navy's Air Force. For a couple of decades Canada unified its branches, so instead of RCAF it would have been CF for "Canadian Forces". They stopped eventually and the RCAF came back into existence.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Which is why I liked the Biden administrations efforts.
You may not agree with them politically, but they came up with a plan to revitalise a range of industries in the US, via government support.
It may not be my favourite answer - but they came up with an answer to the problem. One that was politically saleable and in line with the beliefs of the Democratic Party.
Rather than just shrugging and saying “you can’t have any jobs”
The most stupid thing was in how this *wasn’t* sold to the electorate - I would have been running a half billion dollars of ads on that.
Actually it was. But those voting Trump weren't interested.
7 bits of bad news rushed out as Parliament breaks up for Christmas
Headings as below; visit website for details
1. Cash 'clearly not' going to fix all potholes 2. NHS staff hit with hefty parking bills 3. WASPI women 'betrayed' 4. PM admits it will 'take time' for people to feel better off 5. Surveys reveal people worried about cost of living 6. 'Bonkers' water bills increase 7. *Another* consultation launched https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/7-bits-bad-news-rushed-34349714
On the 7th day of Chirstmas my true love gave to me....
Fuck me - for what? How long was she his chief of staff? A week? Its almost worse than Johnson giving one to a blond who may or may not be his daughter or who gave him a 'good time' in Downing Street.
It just adds to the cronyism narrative and time for this nonsense to end
I thought Starmer was above all this but he is no better than Johnson and others in awarding failure
The problem is wider than Starmer (not that I am giving him a free ride here). It’s that the whole Whitehall apparatus is set up (and has been for decades) so that those in and adjacent to power are rewarded by peerages to consolidate the power of the political classes. The HoL was used in this way for centuries to cement the rule of the landed gentry, this is no different - same stuff in a different guise.
To change that would be truly revolutionary and I can’t really say I’m shocked that Starmer has reverted to type.
Starmer wants to abolish the House of Lords.
In the meantime he has to equalise numbers.
Sue Gray is a respected civil servant.
I'd be far more quizzical about what There's Coffey and Toby Young... Toby fucking Young have done to deserve a peerage.
Still nothing trumps Charlotte Johnson.. sorry Owen...
Classic whataboutism. The Tories were bloody dreadful with this stuff. Doesn’t make it right.
I’ll credit him for abolishing the HoL when he actually does it. Otherwise he’s just one in a long line of people who complain about it in opposition but find it a useful tool for patronage when in power.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
That's a dangerously absolutist position.
Yes, all else being equal, it's better to uphold the international law and the rules-based system than not. It makes Britain a more reliable partner. It helps reinforce international standards and, at the fringes, helps persuade those who might be thinking about breaking the rules not to - or to not do so as badly. The system overall helps keep standards higher and more known and consistent than they'd otherwise be. Both the framework overall and the specifics of it make resort to violence less likely.
But. All else is not equal. If we bind ourselves to a set of rules which others are ignoring, and gaining an advantage from ignoring, and if we commit to never break any of those rules then we risk handing important initiatives to hostile powers, particularly when international bodies that are supposed to uphold these values and adjudicate on them are themselves flawed.
And the rules-based order does not protect itself by its own shining example, or only to a degree. It would be folly (and a very blinkered view of history), to think the post-WW2 era - within the West anyway - was not underpinned by globally-decisive hard power. It was the ability to *impose* rules that was crucial, an ability which is fast waning - a fact that those who don't like the rules are now exploiting.
Personally, I'm not massively fussed about the Chagos deal, the substance of which keeps most of the status quo in place - or does so for a century, which is long enough. I don't, however, see any reason why Mauritius should get them, unless that's what the Chagossians themselves want.
Upholding international law is, literally, to the country's credit. However, if the cost of doing so in a specific example is greater, then it should not be done.
BTW, Trump is not a strong man. He would like to be seen as such but he is himself weak. He is a bully and, as such, it's regrettable that he's been placed in such a powerful position. But when it comes to using force internationally, he recoils because it scares him and those he'd be using it against scare him.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I am unclear, however, how what I said is absolutist. Where did I talk in absolutes?
Nor did I say Trump was a strong man. I said he has a "Strong Man approach to global politics".
What is notable about the post-WWII period (or maybe really the post-Korean War period) is that there wasn't a single, dominant world power. There were two superpowers in opposition. In that context, international law helped create a context to avoid confrontation -- in some cases, some of the time -- without rules being imposed by force. Lots of disputes were resolved without fighting or were stopped from escalating further.
Yes, of course, some countries have ignored the rules. Are they gaining an advantage from doing so? Don't most people think Putin's invasion of Ukraine -- the most egregious breaking of the rules since Iraq invaded Kuwait -- was ultimately folly?
The question was asked, what do we gain with the Chagos deal. I gave an answer: we stop being in breach of international law. That is an upside to the deal. I've never said we should "commit to never break any of those rules". I've never said international law should be or is paramount. However, international law and the rules based order has proved to often be a good thing. Trying to uphold it is a good thing. (Again, I'm not saying it trumps every other concern.)
You know you’re getting old when friends start getting peerages
That kind of stink usually sets in a year before the government expects to lose. No idea what Starmer is playing at, it looks corrupt and for no gain.
"I think most people will look at Sue Gray's record and think 'fair dos'".
It really does begin to look like quid pro quo for Sue Grey burying the Boris government with the party gate inquiry. It might not be but it does look like it now and the Tories need to start "asking questions" about it across the media and implicating Starmer as corrupt and having a hand in what they can turn into a tainted inquiry that was a set up by Labour to make the Tories look bad.
Perhaps it does, but I don't see the Tories pursuing that line particularly hard?
Speaking of Boris, he should be the Tories' candidate for Mayor of London.
You don't think he's Yesterday's Man now?
Yes, but he's the nearest thing they have to a star, and he's the only one I can think of who can get a good proportion of the Reform vote back, without which they are sunk. Last time out there wasn't a significant Reform presence and they were sunk anyway. *Big star *People can imagine him running London because he did. And they were better times. *Will grab back some Reformers *But still sort of straddles right wing and liberal/centrist politics
He's the only one for all those reasons. Just whether he will. If he doesn't the Tories are toast and will come behind Reform (who will also lose).
That made me laugh. Johnson is seen as a joke in London, and would get nowhere.
Then I thought again, and despite that, he would probably still do better than anyone else. The Tories are in such a bad place (especially in London) that his name recognition probably trumps anyone else - there are no obviously good candidates anyway.
I also can't see how Reform come second - London is the one part of the country where they have little support, apart from in a few outer boroughs. The London soft Labour vote won't be going to Reform - in last night's by-election in Greenwich it went to the LDs, in other cases I can see it going Green or to left-wing Independents.
Likewise the LDs will not come second. But somebody has to. Greens? It could be that sub-20% gets you second place by being slightly less rubbish than everybody else.
It feels like an opportunity for a big name independent if there is someone who fancies it.
Substantive policy decisions will, in any event, be made by the government, not by the ambassador. Mandleson's job is to smooth the relationship with the US, not sabotage it; if he fails in that, he won't last long in post.
Nicko Henderson was the ambassador when my father worked at the DC embassy. According to him, Henderson ran his own completely autonomous foreign policy and often wouldn't even pick up the phone when King Charles Street was calling. He was a distressed purchase by Thatcher who had to appoint him in a tearing hurry when Heath told her to shove the job up her narrow arse.
NH was also a workaholic which was ill-matched to my father's overwhelming preference to spend his working day doing crosswords and perusing catalogues of model train bits.
Sad for all concerned Heath not wanting to go to the US. There was very little point in the loathsome liver-spotted sack of bile remaining in the Commons.
You didn’t like him? What did he do wrong?
You feel he did something right?
Putting country out of the misery of the 1960s Labour in government.
Decimalisation.
Getting the French to allow us to join EEC.
Getting Labour out was fine, but it didn't mean an awful lot in the days of the postwar consensus (as indeed it seems to mean little in these days of centrist consensus).
I regard getting us into the EEC as an unalloyed ill. We should never have joined. It was a distraction at best from the real issues of the British economy, held up as a panacea by dishonest politicians like Heath who had an ideological agenda - again much the same as today's politicians.
Decimalisation I'm fairly neutral on. Pre-decimal currency enforced numeracy.
Decimalisation was an excellent idea, and an all-party one. The move to it began well before Heath. Indeed, the first 'decimal' coins were introduced in 1968, IIRC.
Likewise, Heath didn't persuade the French to drop their opposition (Heath was, of course, lead UK minister under Macmillan, when the French vetoed UK entry). The change wasn't in the British government but the French one.
Heath also ushered the same Labour government back in, in 1974, that he kicked out in 1970.
But he did see the need for fundamental national reform and gave it a good go, so paving the way for Thatcher to make a success of it once the political landscape was more conducive post-Winter of Discontent.
“Decimalisation was an excellent idea, and an all-party one. The move to it began well before Heath.” I understand it goes right the way back into the nineteenth century, when UK was all keen to do it, but the French couldn’t make up their minds wether to join us and the Germans, so it didn’t happen. The main drivers for decimalised back in nineteenth century - where pints in Scotland were more like two pints - were the British.
Sky just said Sue Gray's life peerage is a consolation prize !!!!!!!!
Is Toby Young a consolation prize for having to stop sagging Carrieantoinette?
You are so funny in your attempts to justify Starmer's cronyism which is on a par with Johnson
He discrediting himself on a daily basis
I don't think anyone's cronyism is on a par with Johnson's. Starmer's certainly doesn't seem to be, so far, anyway.
The nature of the Lords is that Labour must appoint lots of loyalists lest it become a chamber full of Tories, and vice versa. Vicious cycle
A fairer criticism of Labour might be that they aren't planning a much more significant reform to end this nonsense.
Labour's reform means we'll get *more* of this nonsense. Kicking out the hereditaries means more life peers will need to be appointed to make up numbers. That's have been increased considerably further if the proposal to remove anyone over 80 had been implemented.
Substantive policy decisions will, in any event, be made by the government, not by the ambassador. Mandleson's job is to smooth the relationship with the US, not sabotage it; if he fails in that, he won't last long in post.
Nicko Henderson was the ambassador when my father worked at the DC embassy. According to him, Henderson ran his own completely autonomous foreign policy and often wouldn't even pick up the phone when King Charles Street was calling. He was a distressed purchase by Thatcher who had to appoint him in a tearing hurry when Heath told her to shove the job up her narrow arse.
NH was also a workaholic which was ill-matched to my father's overwhelming preference to spend his working day doing crosswords and perusing catalogues of model train bits.
Sad for all concerned Heath not wanting to go to the US. There was very little point in the loathsome liver-spotted sack of bile remaining in the Commons.
You didn’t like him? What did he do wrong?
You feel he did something right?
Putting country out of the misery of the 1960s Labour in government.
Decimalisation.
Getting the French to allow us to join EEC.
Getting Labour out was fine, but it didn't mean an awful lot in the days of the postwar consensus (as indeed it seems to mean little in these days of centrist consensus).
I regard getting us into the EEC as an unalloyed ill. We should never have joined. It was a distraction at best from the real issues of the British economy, held up as a panacea by dishonest politicians like Heath who had an ideological agenda - again much the same as today's politicians.
Decimalisation I'm fairly neutral on. Pre-decimal currency enforced numeracy.
Decimalisation was an excellent idea, and an all-party one. The move to it began well before Heath. Indeed, the first 'decimal' coins were introduced in 1968, IIRC.
Likewise, Heath didn't persuade the French to drop their opposition (Heath was, of course, lead UK minister under Macmillan, when the French vetoed UK entry). The change wasn't in the British government but the French one.
Heath also ushered the same Labour government back in, in 1974, that he kicked out in 1970.
But he did see the need for fundamental national reform and gave it a good go, so paving the way for Thatcher to make a success of it once the political landscape was more conducive post-Winter of Discontent.
“Decimalisation was an excellent idea, and an all-party one. The move to it began well before Heath.” I understand it goes right the way back into the nineteenth century, when UK was all keen to do it, but the French couldn’t make up their minds wether to join us and the Germans, so it didn’t happen. The main drivers for decimalised back in nineteenth century - where pints in Scotland were more like two pints - were the British.
Correct history swot where she’s wrong 😇
Uniform units were more C18, in the aftermath of the 1707 takeover.
One of the heroes, or at least major characters, in the Palliser novels by A. Trollope was an enthusiast for decimalising sterling. I forget who it was, maybe Plantagenet Palliser.
On peerages, it's been so long since Labour's been in power that the inbuilt Tory majority has grown, so it's hardly surprising that they've sought to rebalance a bit. As for Sue Gray, it's not difficult to justify her appointment on the basis of her long and distinguished career at, or near the top of, the CS, regardless of her career over the last couple of years.
Toby Young is a much more 'interesting' appointment, and tells us something about Badenoch's views, I think.
And Thérèse Coffey will no doubt set the House of Lords on fire with her soaring rhetoric.
Sky just said Sue Gray's life peerage is a consolation prize !!!!!!!!
Is Toby Young a consolation prize for having to stop sagging Carrieantoinette?
You are so funny in your attempts to justify Starmer's cronyism which is on a par with Johnson
He discrediting himself on a daily basis
I don't think anyone's cronyism is on a par with Johnson's. Starmer's certainly doesn't seem to be, so far, anyway.
The nature of the Lords is that Labour must appoint lots of loyalists lest it become a chamber full of Tories, and vice versa. Vicious cycle
A fairer criticism of Labour might be that they aren't planning a much more significant reform to end this nonsense.
Quite. Gray is actually quite well qualified to serve as a peer, when compared with many recent selections, whatever you think of the last couple of years' shenanigans.
A far better critique is that Labour, with a historic majority likely to last only one term, seems to have given up on Lords reform.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Which is why I liked the Biden administrations efforts.
You may not agree with them politically, but they came up with a plan to revitalise a range of industries in the US, via government support.
It may not be my favourite answer - but they came up with an answer to the problem. One that was politically saleable and in line with the beliefs of the Democratic Party.
Rather than just shrugging and saying “you can’t have any jobs”
The most stupid thing was in how this *wasn’t* sold to the electorate - I would have been running a half billion dollars of ads on that.
Because it was one of the key differences between Biden and Harris. Biden actually cared about the communities in industrial Middle America.
Harris and her staff were all West Coast Liberals who couldn’t sell condoms in a brothel to Middle America.
If she didn't care about the middle American Middle Class then why did she choose Tim Walz as running mate?
The idea that Harris couldn't sell herself to the electorate is poor. She lost, but fairly narrowly. She got 48.4% of the vote. That's more than Trump got the first two times he stood, it's more than Hillary, more than Romney, McCain, or Kerry. It's more than Bill Clinton got when he won in 1992. It's more than Nixon got when he won in 1968 (although it's also less than Nixon got when we lost in 1960).
Bill Grueskin @bgrueskin.bsky.social · 2h Gannett, owner of the Des Moines Register, won’t publicly commit to paying legal costs for Ann Seltzer, the pollster being sued by Trump.
This is ominous, especially in light of the capitulation last week by Disney/ABC, which is vastly better resourced than Gannett.
You know you’re getting old when friends start getting peerages
That kind of stink usually sets in a year before the government expects to lose. No idea what Starmer is playing at, it looks corrupt and for no gain.
"I think most people will look at Sue Gray's record and think 'fair dos'".
It really does begin to look like quid pro quo for Sue Grey burying the Boris government with the party gate inquiry. It might not be but it does look like it now and the Tories need to start "asking questions" about it across the media and implicating Starmer as corrupt and having a hand in what they can turn into a tainted inquiry that was a set up by Labour to make the Tories look bad.
Sue Gray was praised by the Tories when she took over the inquiry. If anything, her report was soft on Johnson. She didn't bury the Boris government. Boris buried the Boris government.
You know you’re getting old when friends start getting peerages
That kind of stink usually sets in a year before the government expects to lose. No idea what Starmer is playing at, it looks corrupt and for no gain.
"I think most people will look at Sue Gray's record and think 'fair dos'".
It really does begin to look like quid pro quo for Sue Grey burying the Boris government with the party gate inquiry. It might not be but it does look like it now and the Tories need to start "asking questions" about it across the media and implicating Starmer as corrupt and having a hand in what they can turn into a tainted inquiry that was a set up by Labour to make the Tories look bad.
There is no-one other than Johnson and Nadine Dorries who believes that Boris wasn't completely in the wrong on Partygate. It didn't take Sue Grey to decide that: the country was perfectly capable of coming to its own conclusions on the evidence freely available.
I would gently suggest it would not be in the Tories' best interests to raise the issue again.
Starmer has not proven himself particularly adept at making appointments; there will be other opportunities.
I disagree to some extent. I have long argued that Johnson tried to comply with the rules in a rather cack handed way - see the stupid Zoom quiz etc. Sunak was given a ticket for attending a meeting and being given some cake. The offenders were the No 10 staff, in the main. Now Johnson and the leadership team should have stopped this. Johnson also was an idiot for not announcing an immediate enquiry when it was first raised. But I do not buy into the narrative of Johnson personally partying all the time.
None of this matters, of course, as 99.9 % think he did. And you are right that there is no earthly reason for the Tories to dredge it up again, whether or not they think Sue Gray has done a Shami Chakrabati.
Whatever happened in No. 10, Boris lied and lied again in the Commons. That was kind of a problem.
On peerages, it's been so long since Labour's been in power that the inbuilt Tory majority has grown, so it's hardly surprising that they've sought to rebalance a bit. As for Sue Gray, it's not difficult to justify her appointment on the basis of her long and distinguished career at, or near the top of, the CS, regardless of her career over the last couple of years.
Toby Young is a much more 'interesting' appointment, and tells us something about Badenoch's views, I think.
And Thérèse Coffey will no doubt set the House of Lords on fire with her soaring rhetoric.
Toby Young, if I rightly remember the Channel 4 docudrama When Boris Met Dave, was at Oxford with Boris and David Cameron. Accepted by mistake, Tobes got a first in PPE like Dave and was sacked from the Times like Boris. He is the quintessential Conservative.
Spoiler: Quintessential was word of the day in the Countdown final.
While it's all getting bad tempered on here, I'm going to tell you a remarkable fact: The UK Air Force that has an F-18 that has been ejected from on two separate occasions, and which is still in service.
(The Meteor is one of my favourite aircraft. It just looks right.)
There is a POV that says planes that look wrong are great. The Stuka, the Victor, the Harrier, the Phantom, the Fokker Triplane, all look like somebody dropped them and glued the broken pieces in the wrong place. It's a stupid POV, but occasionally worth trotting out.
That's an interesting perspective. I'd argue the Spitfire 'looks' far better than the Hurricane, but the latter did most of the work in the Battle of Britain. I love the looks of the Mig-29, but the SU-27 has proved by far the 'better' aircraft - though much of that was because the SU-27 received more upgrades AIUI.
But to counter it, I'd argue there are plenty of wrong-looking planes that were terrible - e.g. the He-162. But this isn't Hush-Kit...
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
I might suggest that his currently-stated ideas for 'peace' in Ukraine is music to Putin's ears. As are his threats towards NATO.
Trump's threats to NATO are purely monetary. He wants European countries to pay their own way, which is a very fair position to hold.
They're not remotely purely monetary. Sure, he thinks that some European states are getting a free ride and are not contributing sufficiently - and he has a point there.
But in terms of the fundamental purpose of Nato, he opposes it. If push came to shove, he'd try to cut a deal rather than take action.
Trump is a dodgy businessman. He understands deals. He understands bribery, blackmail, intimidation and lawfare. He does not understand why the US should go to war on behalf of another country - and particularly one that isn't paying for it. He never will. He sees US troops abroad solely as mercenaries who should be returning an income.
But the point is that if Europe resolved the monetary issue and actually paid for it's own defence the thought of a Russian incursion would be ridiculous. That the likes of Germany have spend half of the already too low target for two decades is why the Russians are even capable of taking on European countries in our backyard.
If we want Trump to understand why the US should go to war for another country then we should first get other European nations to understand why we should go to war. It's completely hypocritical to expect the US to bail out rich nations across the EU when it comes to defending out territory and frankly, I'm on Trump's side to some extent. We need to be able to look after our own and not rely on another country to do it for us. This isn't WW2 and a fight for survival, this is a minor territorial incursion that European NATO countries should have been able to repel back in 2014 in alliance with Ukraine to put Putin back in his box but we have neither the capability nor the will to spend our blood and treasure doing so. Suggesting that Trump is uniquely bad for not wanting to spend American blood and treasure on defending foreign territory not in his backyard is simply ridiculous.
"But the point is that if Europe resolved the monetary issue and actually paid for it's own defence the thought of a Russian incursion would be ridiculous."
I think that's very wrong. Firstly, no single European country could be expected to match what Russia is currently spending alone. Even together, 'Europe' would find it hard. The massive block that is NATO has its own power; the power of a grouping. Russia is going through enormous pain to support Putin's war. NATO has hardly buffed its nails and has grievously wounded Russia.
Putin loves to divide and separate. If there was no NATO, then he would pick everyone else off, one-by-one, as he has Hungary, and has tried in Romania.
The fact NATO is a massive power block works to all members' advantage; including America. That does not mean European countries should not be paying more - and I agree they should. But all Putin will hear from Trump's stupid rhetoric is "NATO can be divided and defeated."
But I'm not suggesting any single nation to do it alone? The EU + UK has collective PPP of $34tn vs Russia at $7tn. It is within the realm of possibility that as a collective European NATO countries can fund a defence budget 2x the size of Russia's in PPP terms, essentially being able to buy double the strength. We choose not to because we prefer to spend on welfare programmes and pensions. We've neglected to defend the border properly and now that bill is coming due.
You know you’re getting old when friends start getting peerages
That kind of stink usually sets in a year before the government expects to lose. No idea what Starmer is playing at, it looks corrupt and for no gain.
"I think most people will look at Sue Gray's record and think 'fair dos'".
It really does begin to look like quid pro quo for Sue Grey burying the Boris government with the party gate inquiry. It might not be but it does look like it now and the Tories need to start "asking questions" about it across the media and implicating Starmer as corrupt and having a hand in what they can turn into a tainted inquiry that was a set up by Labour to make the Tories look bad.
That would be truly hilarious! Boris set up by Sue Gray with the collusion of the Metropolitan police and a bunch of cleaners who claimed to have washed vomit off the the new Lulu Lytle wallpaper and all recorded by Boris's own photographer.....
You know you’re getting old when friends start getting peerages
That kind of stink usually sets in a year before the government expects to lose. No idea what Starmer is playing at, it looks corrupt and for no gain.
"I think most people will look at Sue Gray's record and think 'fair dos'".
It really does begin to look like quid pro quo for Sue Grey burying the Boris government with the party gate inquiry. It might not be but it does look like it now and the Tories need to start "asking questions" about it across the media and implicating Starmer as corrupt and having a hand in what they can turn into a tainted inquiry that was a set up by Labour to make the Tories look bad.
That would be truly hilarious! Boris set up by Sue Gray with the collusion of the Metropolitan police and a bunch of cleaners who claimed to have washed vomit off the the new Lulu Lytle wallpaper and all recorded by Boris's own photographer.....
What an operator!
Even you must admit the leaky leaky nature of the inquiry was a bit convenient for Labour...
Comments
But Martin-Baker have a 60-70 year old Meteor that has undergone hundreds of ejections:
https://www.key.aero/article/martin-baker-meteors-how-first-generation-jets-test-ejection-seats-5th-gen-fighters
(The Meteor is one of my favourite aircraft. It just looks right.)
In the meantime he has to equalise numbers.
Sue Gray is a respected civil servant.
I'd be far more quizzical about what There's Coffey and Toby Young... Toby fucking Young have done to deserve a peerage.
Still nothing trumps Charlotte Johnson.. sorry Owen...
As my wife and I aged we faced ever increasing travel insurance and the last one was in excess of £2,500 with £500 exceses
We never considered travel abroad without insurance
America and Europe are first world countries that share similar interests in democracy, trade and the liberal order - with lots of shared cultural roots, however distant.
America isn't going to close the door on Europe. It just (a) doesn't want it to have a completely free ride, and (b) needs to focus more of its resources on the Pacific - where Europe isn't, and no-one else is apart from the USA.
The minister relates that for the rest of his tenure, the next gong for said civil servant was bought up repeatedly. Apparently it wa jolly unfair not to give it to him.
*Big star
*People can imagine him running London because he did. And they were better times.
*Will grab back some Reformers
*But still sort of straddles right wing and liberal/centrist politics
He's the only one for all those reasons. Just whether he will. If he doesn't the Tories are toast and will come behind Reform (who will also lose).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/navantia-uk-acquire-harland-wolff-154235355.html
Spain buys our shipyards.
I didn't think we had any F18s.
But I'm not in London, and don't follow London politics closely, so could be wrong.
He discrediting himself on a daily basis
Apparently it is not going down well in Labour, especially with former Labour mps who expected recognition
Headings as below; visit website for details
1. Cash 'clearly not' going to fix all potholes
2. NHS staff hit with hefty parking bills
3. WASPI women 'betrayed'
4. PM admits it will 'take time' for people to feel better off
5. Surveys reveal people worried about cost of living
6. 'Bonkers' water bills increase
7. *Another* consultation launched
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/7-bits-bad-news-rushed-34349714
Perhaps give the answer you think Peston would say...
A fairer criticism of Labour might be that they aren't planning a much more significant reform to end this nonsense.
I’ll credit him for abolishing the HoL when he actually does it. Otherwise he’s just one in a long line of people who complain about it in opposition but find it a useful tool for patronage when in power.
https://bsky.app/profile/scotnational.bsky.social/post/3ldqqx4di522t
(He's made Toby Young into a life peer. WTAF)
Nor did I say Trump was a strong man. I said he has a "Strong Man approach to global politics".
What is notable about the post-WWII period (or maybe really the post-Korean War period) is that there wasn't a single, dominant world power. There were two superpowers in opposition. In that context, international law helped create a context to avoid confrontation -- in some cases, some of the time -- without rules being imposed by force. Lots of disputes were resolved without fighting or were stopped from escalating further.
Yes, of course, some countries have ignored the rules. Are they gaining an advantage from doing so? Don't most people think Putin's invasion of Ukraine -- the most egregious breaking of the rules since Iraq invaded Kuwait -- was ultimately folly?
The question was asked, what do we gain with the Chagos deal. I gave an answer: we stop being in breach of international law. That is an upside to the deal. I've never said we should "commit to never break any of those rules". I've never said international law should be or is paramount. However, international law and the rules based order has proved to often be a good thing. Trying to uphold it is a good thing. (Again, I'm not saying it trumps every other concern.)
Then I thought again, and despite that, he would probably still do better than anyone else. The Tories are in such a bad place (especially in London) that his name recognition probably trumps anyone else - there are no obviously good candidates anyway.
I also can't see how Reform come second - London is the one part of the country where they have little support, apart from in a few outer boroughs. The London soft Labour vote won't be going to Reform - in last night's by-election in Greenwich it went to the LDs, in other cases I can see it going Green or to left-wing Independents.
Likewise the LDs will not come second. But somebody has to. Greens? It could be that sub-20% gets you second place by being slightly less rubbish than everybody else.
It feels like an opportunity for a big name independent if there is someone who fancies it.
NEW THREAD
Correct history swot where she’s wrong 😇
One of the heroes, or at least major characters, in the Palliser novels by A. Trollope was an enthusiast for decimalising sterling. I forget who it was, maybe Plantagenet Palliser.
Toby Young is a much more 'interesting' appointment, and tells us something about Badenoch's views, I think.
And Thérèse Coffey will no doubt set the House of Lords on fire with her soaring rhetoric.
Gray is actually quite well qualified to serve as a peer, when compared with many recent selections, whatever you think of the last couple of years' shenanigans.
A far better critique is that Labour, with a historic majority likely to last only one term, seems to have given up on Lords reform.
Little Of-words-novel Dictionary Friend Your Is.
Spoiler: Quintessential was word of the day in the Countdown final.
But to counter it, I'd argue there are plenty of wrong-looking planes that were terrible - e.g. the He-162. But this isn't Hush-Kit...
What an operator!