Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
I think it's anyone who's not a fan of Farage or Corbyn ?
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
An example of stuff happening, where NZ takes action over something which would normally be not noticed at all. This is real fear operating. Plenty more to come.
I would suggest that that may be due to insufficient coordination with his Government, and he went off-piste when he should have been pretending he was on-piste; that or the home Government has reverse-ferreted in some way and left him hanging. Phil Goff is a very experienced politician, so it's a bit of a surprise.
That seems to be in contrast to the Lammy-Starmer-Mandelson triple-act - so far at least !
I suspect that China will be the most effective and efficient of the various powerful tyrannies we face, but perhaps also the least intolerable.
China under Xi hasn't yet invaded its neighbour nor is it imposing big new tariffs on its main economic rival
This is worth repeating, because it"s how much of the world sees things.
China is largely seen as a peacable manufacturer, trader, and mercenary businessman.
China is rapidly expanding its empire by, it appears, giving its subject peoples money. You can see why this is more popular than the alternative form of imperialism. Its also probably more cost effective.
I have a deep distrust for China. But, incredibly, I find myself questioning now whether China has risen above the USA in our list of foreign powers to be trusted.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
I appreciate the empathy, but perhaps voters in mature democracies should bear more responsibility?
There was clear evidence in advance that this would be a vote for authoritarianism, corruption, undermining of the constitution, a deadly cult of personality, weaponisation of the justice system and fatal overturning of the rule of law. You could also argue
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
What about New Zealand???
Very deep in with China, sadly. I'd probably add Japan and Italy to the top of our second order allies list, shift them into the top grouping if the Tempest project gets the green light (which is really must now).
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
It's the Trumpian approach to conflict resolution: simply give the stronger party whatever it needs to finish off the weaker party. Hey presto: peace!
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
I bought 'All or Nothing' as an audiobook to listen to on a flight a couple of days ago. It covers Trump for the last five years and the author Michael Wolff hates him. But if anyone wants to read the inside story of a truly repellant man I would strongly recommend it.
I suspect that China will be the most effective and efficient of the various powerful tyrannies we face, but perhaps also the least intolerable.
China under Xi hasn't yet invaded its neighbour nor is it imposing big new tariffs on its main economic rival
This is worth repeating, because it"s how much of the world sees things.
China is largely seen as a peacable manufacturer, trader, and mercenary businessman.
China is rapidly expanding its empire by, it appears, giving its subject peoples money. You can see why this is more popular than the alternative form of imperialism. Its also probably more cost effective.
I have a deep distrust for China. But, incredibly, I find myself questioning now whether China has risen above the USA in our list of foreign powers to be trusted.
China needs Zambian copper so it invested in infrastructure between Ndole and Kitwe. It's a more effective form of colonisation than simply taking the minerals and subjugating the people.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
What about New Zealand???
Very deep in with China, sadly. I'd probably add Japan and Italy to the top of our second order allies list, shift them into the top grouping if the Tempest project gets the green light (which is really must now).
That was under Ardern, under Luxon's right of centre government New Zealand is more wary of China
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
I appreciate the empathy, but perhaps voters in mature democracies should bear more responsibility?
There was clear evidence in advance that this would be a vote for authoritarianism, corruption, undermining of the constitution, a deadly cult of personality, weaponisation of the justice system and fatal overturning of the rule of law. You could also argue
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
What about New Zealand???
Very deep in with China, sadly. I'd probably add Japan and Italy to the top of our second order allies list, shift them into the top grouping if the Tempest project gets the green light (which is really must now).
Surely the Nordics are in our top tier of allies?
Striking resistance to even mentioning Germany let alone classifying its level of allyship (in the unlikely event that that’s a word).
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
And in the last government, Attorney General Alex Chalk is also on record as wanting and failing to change what some would call two-tier sentencing guidelines.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
No Australia and Canada and NZ are first as we share the King as our head of state with them and our language and similar ancestry.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
NATO is dead - we haven't yet formally wound it up but as Article 5 no longer applies then the whole concept of mutual defence is over. That then imperils the five eyes intelligence group and so on and so on.
My response to who is first is all of them. UK / Canada / Australia / NZ are the Four Eyes intelligence group. UK is in rNATO as are France et al, with Japan, S Korea, Singapore and others as strategic allies.
With the shuttering of NATO and Five Eyes, we need to rapidly evolve the alliance and that means everyone.
Starmer announced support for Ukraine in a way that boosts our economy. Germany is lifting its borrowing cap and will be investing in ways that boosts its economy. War footing economies can be very effective - many allied economies have been stagnant for a long time. The end of NATO is a political jolt but can also be a positive economic one.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am now ramping the idea that we need to invest heavily in defence. But we do, and we need investment in our economy. Its an opportunity we have to grasp in this new phase of our world order.
Worth noting that while Starmer's public position is the inviolability of the USA/NATO deal, his best friend Macron is charged with a slightly different position, reflecting of course the UK's true stance, as the Guardian reports his words:
He further said said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our [nuclear] deterrent” but stressed any use of France’s nuclear weapons would remain only in the hands of the French president.
Macron said in his address: “I want to believe the US will stay by our side. But we have to be ready if that isn’t the case.
“Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow, and yes the threat from the east is returning. And the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”
The second approach is to decide to suck it all up for four years, in the hope that things will then get easier. This means accepting the likelihood, though never saying so publicly, that Trump is always going to be destructive and mean-spirited. At the same time, it means working to keep US links – especially military and intelligence links – strong enough to be revived more effectively after 2028...
For Starmer, this could mean a lot of firefighting over the next four years, without any certainty of a post-Trump dividend or British public approval. Such fires could break out on any number of issues, including not just Ukraine but also the Middle East, bilateral trade, Nato, US-EU relations and, judging by this week’s speech, Canada, Greenland and the Panama canal...
Which leaves the third strategy. This is to accept that Trump’s approach is now the US’s new normal and that there will be no comforting return to past arrangements. Whoever comes after Trump may be friendlier, more rational and less rude. Either way, US exceptionalism, isolationism and disengagement from Europe are likely to be here to stay. So too are the immensely tough consequences for countries like Britain, which can no longer rely on a US security and intelligence shield against Russia or any other hostile states. Rearmament is back. This will require something close to a war economy, and it cannot be created overnight.
At present, Starmer has one foot in the first approach and another in the second. But it is the third approach that will loom largest as an option as the next four years unfold. None of these is a soft option, and all of them overlap. Starmer is right, for example, to oppose false binary choices between Europe and the US.
Nevertheless, if Trump’s speech to Congress is to be taken seriously, this is a president who has changed sides in the battle of values between democracy and authoritarianism. Starmer may feel he has to tell Europe that Trump will still “have our backs”. But Trump could just as soon stab Europe in the back too. After all, that’s exactly what he just did...
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
I think it's anyone who's not a fan of Farage or Corbyn ?
Crying over Ukraine seems to have disappeared from my socials to be replaced by wheezing over that bloke getting noshed off in the back of his dad's van when his Mrs catches him. As usual, pb.com is behind the curve.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Considering how unlikely it is that @RCS1000 friend follows this site, I think he remains in blissful ignorance.
Worth noting that Californias electoral vote went to Harris so this persons vote did not help get Trump elected (though his vote for HoR may have made a difference).
It's best not to mock such people to their faces though, but rather to get them to question themselves. "If you had your vote over again, would you vote the same way?" And then leave it there whatever his response. If Harris, job done, if still Trump then just let the seed grow rather than start an argument.
One should welcome political converts like parable of the prodigal son.
Definitely. America soiled itself on Nov 5th and it's for them to clean it up with a big vote against Trump next year in the midterms. That's the best chance of damage mitigation - the ballot box - therefore it's crucial his approvals collapse at home. This in turn means lots of people like RCS's mate who voted for him going, "oh shit, wtf did I do?" So the more of that the merrier. It should be welcomed.
Still, it's hard not to feel like Nico67 - so hard that I can't quite manage it. Donald Trump didn't hide his unfitness for office, he flaunted it, and yet 77m voted for him. They would have had their reasons but none of them are remotely good enough. It was a crime as far as I'm concerned and if many of those who committed it feel some pain as a result, well there are sadder things in this world.
Revealed: peer’s offer to get meetings with ministers for potential client Richard Dannatt told undercover reporters he could make introductions, despite House of Lords ban on lobbying
He added he could easily “rub shoulders” with the right people in the Lords if he needed to approach a minister in order to promote the potential client.
Lord Dannatt also said he had previously introduced a company, in which he was given a shareholding, to a minister and civil servants.
At the beginning and end of the meeting with the reporters, the crossbench peer said he was “very wary and nervous” because he had been the target of an undercover sting by the press more than a decade ago.
He said he did not want a repeat of an “extraordinarily embarrassing” episode. Dannatt was cleared of any wrongdoing on the previous occasion...
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
No Australia and Canada and NZ are first as we share the King as our head of state with them and our language and similar ancestry.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
NATO is dead - we haven't yet formally wound it up but as Article 5 no longer applies then the whole concept of mutual defence is over. That then imperils the five eyes intelligence group and so on and so on.
My response to who is first is all of them. UK / Canada / Australia / NZ are the Four Eyes intelligence group. UK is in rNATO as are France et al, with Japan, S Korea, Singapore and others as strategic allies.
With the shuttering of NATO and Five Eyes, we need to rapidly evolve the alliance and that means everyone.
Starmer announced support for Ukraine in a way that boosts our economy. Germany is lifting its borrowing cap and will be investing in ways that boosts its economy. War footing economies can be very effective - many allied economies have been stagnant for a long time. The end of NATO is a political jolt but can also be a positive economic one.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am now ramping the idea that we need to invest heavily in defence. But we do, and we need investment in our economy. Its an opportunity we have to grasp in this new phase of our world order.
Worth noting that while Starmer's public position is the inviolability of the USA/NATO deal, his best friend Macron is charged with a slightly different position, reflecting of course the UK's true stance, as the Guardian reports his words:
He further said said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our [nuclear] deterrent” but stressed any use of France’s nuclear weapons would remain only in the hands of the French president.
Macron said in his address: “I want to believe the US will stay by our side. But we have to be ready if that isn’t the case.
“Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow, and yes the threat from the east is returning. And the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”
The second approach is to decide to suck it all up for four years, in the hope that things will then get easier. This means accepting the likelihood, though never saying so publicly, that Trump is always going to be destructive and mean-spirited. At the same time, it means working to keep US links – especially military and intelligence links – strong enough to be revived more effectively after 2028...
For Starmer, this could mean a lot of firefighting over the next four years, without any certainty of a post-Trump dividend or British public approval. Such fires could break out on any number of issues, including not just Ukraine but also the Middle East, bilateral trade, Nato, US-EU relations and, judging by this week’s speech, Canada, Greenland and the Panama canal...
Which leaves the third strategy. This is to accept that Trump’s approach is now the US’s new normal and that there will be no comforting return to past arrangements. Whoever comes after Trump may be friendlier, more rational and less rude. Either way, US exceptionalism, isolationism and disengagement from Europe are likely to be here to stay. So too are the immensely tough consequences for countries like Britain, which can no longer rely on a US security and intelligence shield against Russia or any other hostile states. Rearmament is back. This will require something close to a war economy, and it cannot be created overnight.
At present, Starmer has one foot in the first approach and another in the second. But it is the third approach that will loom largest as an option as the next four years unfold. None of these is a soft option, and all of them overlap. Starmer is right, for example, to oppose false binary choices between Europe and the US.
Nevertheless, if Trump’s speech to Congress is to be taken seriously, this is a president who has changed sides in the battle of values between democracy and authoritarianism. Starmer may feel he has to tell Europe that Trump will still “have our backs”. But Trump could just as soon stab Europe in the back too. After all, that’s exactly what he just did...
Yes, that is so.
However decent any future US government might be (and it's hard to see how they could be more indecent than the current lot), there is no way we can allow ourselves to become dependent upon them.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
Doesn't that say more about Leon than about arts graduates in general?
That's why I specified SOME arts graduates. We saw it a lot in how MSM reported on covid too.
It's not really arts graduates v science graduates, though this is a handy shorthand. It's people who can think mathematically v people who can't. The former group is very small. It doesn't fit the human brain. Rather arrogantly, I place myself in it. Sorry. Maths was my best subject at school but I didn't do it an university.
But even my brain often instinctively wants to make a billion about twice a million and I have to concentrate in order for it not to.
This isn't unusual. People's brains instinctively think logarithmically rather than instinctively. You have to educate them out of it. If you asked someone with no mathematical education whatsoever (like a small child) what half of nine is, they would say three.
We saw this numerical blindness (or logarithmic estimation, as you say) in Covid; we see it every year when The Apprentice rolls round and viewers invoke conspiracy theories that ultimately fail because £250,000 to a billionaire is like £250 to a millionaire and a couple of quid to the viewer on the Clapham omnibus.
Another popular comparison is that a million seconds is eleven minutes; a billion seconds is 31 years.
I suspect that China will be the most effective and efficient of the various powerful tyrannies we face, but perhaps also the least intolerable.
China under Xi hasn't yet invaded its neighbour nor is it imposing big new tariffs on its main economic rival
This is worth repeating, because it"s how much of the world sees things.
China is largely seen as a peacable manufacturer, trader, and mercenary businessman.
China is rapidly expanding its empire by, it appears, giving its subject peoples money. You can see why this is more popular than the alternative form of imperialism. Its also probably more cost effective.
I have a deep distrust for China. But, incredibly, I find myself questioning now whether China has risen above the USA in our list of foreign powers to be trusted.
Probably not. Take Chinese money, and eventually, you end up with people storming the Presidential palace.
Governments that treat their own people like shit are not going to treat foreign clients any better.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
A fairly large part of that $4bn package is for 2000lb bombs. There are no immediately obvious military targets for those.
Apart, of course, from the extensive tunnel network housing arms and munitions.
Israel has dropped well over 70000 tons of bombs on Gaza, which is more than the total dropped on London, Dresden and Hamburg in World War II. Do you really think there's anything left it's actually worth dropping more bombs on?
Crying over Ukraine seems to have disappeared from my socials to be replaced by wheezing over that bloke getting noshed off in the back of his dad's van when his Mrs catches him. As usual, pb.com is behind the curve.
Social media is dominated by northern women, what with her and the girl who needs a credit card to buy ice cream.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
Crying over Ukraine seems to have disappeared from my socials to be replaced by wheezing over that bloke getting noshed off in the back of his dad's van when his Mrs catches him. As usual, pb.com is behind the curve.
What are the betting implications of this new story?
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
Yes, the sinner that repents must be welcomed back, else they won't repent.
That's true, but I think that there is a time factor. Cheap repentance is easy, and the NT evalution criteria is actions not words aka "by their deeds shall you know them." In political terms we could call it "trust but verify".
As I see it with the USA is that they have burnt down 75 years of trust, political capital and all the rest in a month, including much of their own democratic system and international law (Trump's EO assaulting the International Criminal Court, for example, or his abolition of bodies protecting the USA against Russia).
Even if sanity is restored at the top of USA politics, half of the problems are in the fragile underlying system and the people who now stack it - many on lifetime appointments, such as Judge Cannon who is now 43. Very major reform is needed, and it may take 50 years to work through - just as with the German system still stacked with former Nazi people after WW2, and eg the after-effects of the Gehlen organisation on German intelligence services.
For personal examples, consider Charles Colson, who after Watergate converted, repented, pled guilty, and went to prison. The reality was demonstrated by the next 30 years.
For a UK equivalent I think the best I can mention off the top of my head may be Jonathon Aitken, though I don't know what he did with his millions which might have been the hardest part for his conversion to have reached.
As a counter example, consider Russell Brand - who was baptised last year. I'm inclined, until I see a long-term change (say 10 years), to think that this is likely to be his latest mask. That someone who's long-term problem seems to have been abuse of women, it is not a good sign that afaics he seems to be continuing to sell himself as a guru for women seeking "wellness". I think Bear Grylls may end up a little embarrassed at his over-optimism.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
Good for Farage; good for Jenrick in his bid to replace Kemi; less good for the Conservatives as a whole given their own involvement.
And ironically and somewhat cynically, Jenrick chose to stir the pot on the same afternoon that Kemi had her best PMQs since records began.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
He doesn't want to understand. Like many of us, he has a fixed worldview, and everything that happens has to be contorted into that worldview, rather than having his worldview shifted.
That's something that can happen to all of us. In fact, it's probably the case for me as well on some things.
Everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance to some extent, it's just more pronounced in some people than others.
The real trick is to recognise it when it's happening to you.
I've never seen any credible evidence that I'm affected by cognitive dissonance.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Doesn't rhyme. And I'm afraid the regular use of "Two Tier Keir" is becoming akin to wearing an "I'm a racist wanker" badge.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
No Australia and Canada and NZ are first as we share the King as our head of state with them and our language and similar ancestry.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
NATO is dead - we haven't yet formally wound it up but as Article 5 no longer applies then the whole concept of mutual defence is over. That then imperils the five eyes intelligence group and so on and so on.
My response to who is first is all of them. UK / Canada / Australia / NZ are the Four Eyes intelligence group. UK is in rNATO as are France et al, with Japan, S Korea, Singapore and others as strategic allies.
With the shuttering of NATO and Five Eyes, we need to rapidly evolve the alliance and that means everyone.
Starmer announced support for Ukraine in a way that boosts our economy. Germany is lifting its borrowing cap and will be investing in ways that boosts its economy. War footing economies can be very effective - many allied economies have been stagnant for a long time. The end of NATO is a political jolt but can also be a positive economic one.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am now ramping the idea that we need to invest heavily in defence. But we do, and we need investment in our economy. Its an opportunity we have to grasp in this new phase of our world order.
Maybe it would be better to just pull the bandage off now, and actually dissolve NATO. That would also give lie to the suggestion that Ukraine is trying to drag the US into war with Russia.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Trust me, on this I really care about the issue. It’s a fucking disgrace
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Labour has the hot seat now. Spotting everything the Tories didn't quite get right would be a bit like crying about Ten Hag's time at Man U (If you're a Man U fan)
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
The US sent Israel 14,000 of them over the last couple of years. If your theory was even a bit right, they probably wouldn't need another urgent shipment this month.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
Trump is the great unifying factor. Watch as Europe comes together in ways that were politically impossible a few months ago. Watch as developed countries like Mexico and Canada band together to repel tariffs from the savages between them. Watch as the American constitution is hollowed out and finally set aside.
Trump wants America to become North Korea. That's fine, you get what you vote for. NATO is a relic of the cold war anyway, time to build something new. Or something old, when Europe used to be military power and the colonialists sat fighting each other.
For all that Ukraine is important, it is the canary in the coal mine. Europe is going to struggle to defend Ukraine with the US switching sides to join the Axis. But the needs of Ukraine show the needs of Europe. We may not be able to resist Putin in Ukraine, but their fight means we will resist him elsewhere. Trump too.
Ukraine has a million strong army, and a large, relatively modern defence industry. Depending on how much is eventually ceded to Russia, that will be added to the future Russian threat. Or to Europe's defences.
Our choice.
Ukraine collapsing would be just catastrophic for Europe. There must be a chance now with the political uncertainty, let alone the lack of equipment and intellgence from the US.
I can't see a way of preventing that without European boots on the ground.
There is also the small matter that Russia would get all that drone technology and expertise, and examples of all the latest Western weapons systems. And the West would lose it.
When someone sees the light as as to how bad Trump is, having previously voted for him in spite of all information about him that was available before November, I think the response should be two-fold:
1) To yourself: enjoy the "I told you so" moment of someone admitting they were wrong and facing the consequences of their own actions, just as so many others are who could not vote.
2) To the person: be conciliatory and don't be a dick.
If everyone in the US can keep the "part 1" thoughts to themselves then we'll have a better chance of said people actually helping to remove the Republican control of congress in 2-years.
We should be similarly magnanimous on PB with any previous Trump supporters (or sympathisers) who have seen the light.
I bought 'All or Nothing' as an audiobook to listen to on a flight a couple of days ago. It covers Trump for the last five years and the author Michael Wolff hates him. But if anyone wants to read the inside story of a truly repellant man I would strongly recommend it.
Michael Wolff's book about his failed dot com startup is hilarious, if you want to read something more cheerful.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
It's the Trumpian approach to conflict resolution: simply give the stronger party whatever it needs to finish off the weaker party. Hey presto: peace!
Next up, allying with China against Taiwan. Get that one done and dusted.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
Yes, the sinner that repents must be welcomed back, else they won't repent.
That's true, but I think that there is a time factor. Cheap repentance is easy, and the NT evalution criteria is actions not words aka "by their deeds shall you know them." In political terms we could call it "trust but verify".
As I see it with the USA is that they have burnt down 75 years of trust, political capital and all the rest in a month, including much of their own democratic system and international law (Trump's EO assaulting the International Criminal Court, for example, or his abolition of bodies protecting the USA against Russia).
Even if sanity is restored at the top of USA politics, half of the problems are in the fragile underlying system and the people who now stack it - many on lifetime appointments, such as Judge Cannon who is now 43. Very major reform is needed, and it may take 50 years to work through - just as with the German system still stacked with former Nazi people after WW2, and eg the after-effects of the Gehlen organisation on German intelligence services.
For personal examples, consider Charles Colson, who after Watergate converted, repented, pled guilty, and went to prison. The reality was demonstrated by the next 30 years.
For a UK equivalent I think the best I can mention off the top of my head may be Jonathon Aitken, though I don't know what he did with his millions which might have been the hardest part for his conversion to have reached.
As a counter example, consider Russell Brand - who was baptised last year. I'm inclined, until I see a long-term change (say 10 years), to think that this is likely to be his latest mask. That someone who's long-term problem seems to have been abuse of women, it is not a good sign that afaics he seems to be continuing to sell himself as a guru for women seeking "wellness". I think Bear Grylls may end up a little embarrassed at his over-optimism.
I think an important feature of repentance is to acknowledge that forgiveness from those you have wronged is an act of grace, not an entitlement. And, that forgiveness from those you have wronged, does not mean that one should escape secular punishment, if what you have done is criminal.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
A fairly large part of that $4bn package is for 2000lb bombs. There are no immediately obvious military targets for those.
Apart, of course, from the extensive tunnel network housing arms and munitions.
Israel has dropped well over 70000 tons of bombs on Gaza, which is more than the total dropped on London, Dresden and Hamburg in World War II. Do you really think there's anything left it's actually worth dropping more bombs on?
Check out the hostage release parades. Plenty more work to be done.
and as a p.s. to my own analysis above, I have of course underestimated the probability significantly, by limiting my scenario to one generation in time, of the early 1500s. In the generation above, there will have been fewer descendants and more ancestors, and in the generation following, more descendants and fewer ancestors, and none of those will need to have paired up either, for me not to be a descendant of the Dark Ages guy.
You don’t need to do the maths to see that the chances of that not being the case head quickly towards zero.
Wait, you’re STILL going at it <<< checks grandfather clock >>> TWELVE HOURS LATER??
More to the point, you're still going at it FOUR DAYS later, and still you don't understand it.
I’ve got you writing entire theses, at 7am (and still deeply flawed) I consider this my greatest triumph (of the week, anyway)
I'll defend you here. Somebody who hasn't had any maths in their life since they were 15 can hardly be expected to be fluent in concepts like compounding.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
It's the Trumpian approach to conflict resolution: simply give the stronger party whatever it needs to finish off the weaker party. Hey presto: peace!
Next up, allying with China against Taiwan. Get that one done and dusted.
If the price was right, they would ally with China.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Doesn't rhyme. And I'm afraid the regular use of "Two Tier Keir" is becoming akin to wearing an "I'm a racist wanker" badge.
In other words, like “Rachel from Accounts”, you don’t like “Two Tier Keir” because it is effective, because it says something true, in a neat and clever way
Most political nicknames are silly and ineffective, these aren’t
When someone sees the light as as to how bad Trump is, having previously voted for him in spite of all information about him that was available before November, I think the response should be two-fold:
1) To yourself: enjoy the "I told you so" moment of someone admitting they were wrong and facing the consequences of their own actions, just as so many others are who could not vote.
2) To the person: be conciliatory and don't be a dick.
If everyone in the US can keep the "part 1" thoughts to themselves then we'll have a better chance of said people actually helping to remove the Republican control of congress in 2-years.
We should be similarly magnanimous on PB with any previous Trump supporters (or sympathisers) who have seen the light.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
Yes, the sinner that repents must be welcomed back, else they won't repent.
That's true, but I think that there is a time factor. Cheap repentance is easy, and the NT evalution criteria is actions not words aka "by their deeds shall you know them." In political terms we could call it "trust but verify".
As I see it with the USA is that they have burnt down 75 years of trust, political capital and all the rest in a month, including much of their own democratic system and international law (Trump's EO assaulting the International Criminal Court, for example, or his abolition of bodies protecting the USA against Russia).
Even if sanity is restored at the top of USA politics, half of the problems are in the fragile underlying system and the people who now stack it - many on lifetime appointments, such as Judge Cannon who is now 43. Very major reform is needed, and it may take 50 years to work through - just as with the German system still stacked with former Nazi people after WW2, and eg the after-effects of the Gehlen organisation on German intelligence services.
For personal examples, consider Charles Colson, who after Watergate converted, repented, pled guilty, and went to prison. The reality was demonstrated by the next 30 years.
For a UK equivalent I think the best I can mention off the top of my head may be Jonathon Aitken, though I don't know what he did with his millions which might have been the hardest part for his conversion to have reached.
As a counter example, consider Russell Brand - who was baptised last year. I'm inclined, until I see a long-term change (say 10 years), to think that this is likely to be his latest mask. That someone who's long-term problem seems to have been abuse of women, it is not a good sign that afaics he seems to be continuing to sell himself as a guru for women seeking "wellness". I think Bear Grylls may end up a little embarrassed at his over-optimism.
I think an important feature of repentance is to acknowledge that forgiveness from those you have wronged is an act of grace, not an entitlement. And, that forgiveness from those you have wronged, does not mean that one should escape secular punishment, if what you have done is criminal.
Criminalising a vote for Trump is possibly a step too far...
When someone sees the light as as to how bad Trump is, having previously voted for him in spite of all information about him that was available before November, I think the response should be two-fold:
1) To yourself: enjoy the "I told you so" moment of someone admitting they were wrong and facing the consequences of their own actions, just as so many others are who could not vote.
2) To the person: be conciliatory and don't be a dick.
If everyone in the US can keep the "part 1" thoughts to themselves then we'll have a better chance of said people actually helping to remove the Republican control of congress in 2-years.
We should be similarly magnanimous on PB with any previous Trump supporters (or sympathisers) who have seen the light.
Normalcy bias is also a feature. People believe that normal structures will hold malevolent actors in check, until they do not.
A generation ago, there would be plenty of Republican Representatives and Senators pushing back against Trump. People like Hegseth and Gabbard would never have been voted through.
These days, as noted upthread, the Congressional Republicans are a claque of performing seals.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Trust me, on this I really care about the issue. It’s a fucking disgrace
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
OK, so its not Two Tier Keir then is it. Why are you blaming the new government for the failings of the previous one? I get that they aren't acting quickly enough for you on this subject. But *they didn't do this*. And yet you blame them.
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
I bought 'All or Nothing' as an audiobook to listen to on a flight a couple of days ago. It covers Trump for the last five years and the author Michael Wolff hates him. But if anyone wants to read the inside story of a truly repellant man I would strongly recommend it.
Michael Wolff's book about his failed dot com startup is hilarious, if you want to read something more cheerful.
This one is quite funny but the behaviour for a one time President is so outlandish and self serving it's difficult to laugh without feeling a little bit soiled
“We need something that is very far-reaching, very dramatic,” said Ross, the head of W.L. Ross & Co. “An idea I’ve been in favor of is to scrap all of the corporate income taxes, all of the individual income taxes, and substitute a value-added tax on all goods imported into the country and manufactured and consumed here, and then rebate it on exports.”
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
Yes, the sinner that repents must be welcomed back, else they won't repent.
That's true, but I think that there is a time factor. Cheap repentance is easy, and the NT evalution criteria is actions not words aka "by their deeds shall you know them." In political terms we could call it "trust but verify".
As I see it with the USA is that they have burnt down 75 years of trust, political capital and all the rest in a month, including much of their own democratic system and international law (Trump's EO assaulting the International Criminal Court, for example, or his abolition of bodies protecting the USA against Russia).
Even if sanity is restored at the top of USA politics, half of the problems are in the fragile underlying system and the people who now stack it - many on lifetime appointments, such as Judge Cannon who is now 43. Very major reform is needed, and it may take 50 years to work through - just as with the German system still stacked with former Nazi people after WW2, and eg the after-effects of the Gehlen organisation on German intelligence services.
For personal examples, consider Charles Colson, who after Watergate converted, repented, pled guilty, and went to prison. The reality was demonstrated by the next 30 years.
For a UK equivalent I think the best I can mention off the top of my head may be Jonathon Aitken, though I don't know what he did with his millions which might have been the hardest part for his conversion to have reached.
As a counter example, consider Russell Brand - who was baptised last year. I'm inclined, until I see a long-term change (say 10 years), to think that this is likely to be his latest mask. That someone who's long-term problem seems to have been abuse of women, it is not a good sign that afaics he seems to be continuing to sell himself as a guru for women seeking "wellness". I think Bear Grylls may end up a little embarrassed at his over-optimism.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Trust me, on this I really care about the issue. It’s a fucking disgrace
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
OK, so its not Two Tier Keir then is it. Why are you blaming the new government for the failings of the previous one? I get that they aren't acting quickly enough for you on this subject. But *they didn't do this*. And yet you blame them.
Because Leon’s brand of lazy cynicism is easier than actually engaging with the grubby reality of actual politics. Plus it sells better, as we all know too well.
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
They’re building a bunch of them to be launched over the next few years; looks like the MoD got the memo about the potential loss of Five Eyes data much earlier than everyone else did.
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
The problem is that we almost certainly rely on Elon Musk to launch said satellites.
“Europeans make the mistake of regarding Trump as an overmighty would-be emperor. In fact, he is actuated by a nagging sense of weakness. He must either strike enough deals around the world to power and equip his country’s economy, or face an unacceptable level of dependence on China, the most powerful industrial and military foe the US has ever faced.”
Trump is a symptom of relative American DECLINE, not a new world-tyrant of a mighty surging power. That may not be much consolation as he trashes NATO, mind
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
If white working class boys are getting longer sentences than their peers in areas where white people are a minority, these kind of pre-sentencing reports could help to prevent two-tier justice.
The media have been kind to Farage so far failing to nail him on his Trump love-in and also his previous pro Putin comments .
It’s difficult though for Lab and the Cons to go after him on Trump . But Putin should be an open goal .
Indeed all those Trump Putin loving right wing politicians in Europe must be just a little bit nervous.
If the US sticks tariffs on the EU not sure it’s a good look to be fawning over Trump .
Trump's next round of tariffs are due in April, we will see if the EU is hit and UK avoids them
Unfortunately, Wilbur Ross has the President's ear on tariffs, and he thinks VAT is tariff on US goods coming into Europe and the UK.
So, I think it is highly likely we will get stung too.
This is not a bad thing. It will push the UK more towards Europe (and Canada, Mexico and others), and remove the delusions that Britain can act as a restraining influence and bridge between the US and whoever, and that Britain enjoys some form of exceptional relationship.
The world needs to stop letting Trump set the agenda, which he will be allowed to do as long as people fear the consequences of saying 'no'.
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
They’re building a bunch of them to be launched over the next few years; looks like the MoD got the memo about the potential loss of Five Eyes data much earlier than everyone else did.
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
The problem is that we almost certainly rely on Elon Musk to launch said satellites.
Fortunately Europe still retains launch capability & even if it is more expensive it’s still a small fraction of the cost of developing these things in the first place.
Shame we canned our own launch system in the 70s just as we got it working. If we have to stand up our own SLICBM program from scratch it’s going to be very expensive. Maybe we’ll be able to convince the French to give us technical support?
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
They’re building a bunch of them to be launched over the next few years; looks like the MoD got the memo about the potential loss of Five Eyes data much earlier than everyone else did.
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
The problem is that we almost certainly rely on Elon Musk to launch said satellites.
Did you know Britain has a space base in Sheltland? I was delighted when I found out. You can have a look around it on Google Streetview - it has a slightly cold war feel. Perhaps that could be used, somehow (I know almost nothing about the practicalities of this sort of thing).
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
A former politician observed yesterday, their view, when politicians screw up normally it leads to a bad outcomes that can be reversed or crashing an economy which eventually can be undone.
What Trump has done in the last week has ensured thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians die or are subjugated and that's not a normal screw up, that's evil, thankfully even Reform voters have seen the light.
Trouble is that many Яeform voters have not seen the light. They are still their social media regurgitating Moscows propaganda, waiting and untouchable.
It's a process not an event.
Of course there'll be a few 'tankies' but they will be a minority.
I wish I had your optimism. I was at an event on Sunday. There was a Яeform voter opining about corrupt Zelenskyy, he was delighted by Trump and thought our mainstream politicians were warmongering.
It’s not good. These guys are quite happy in their impenetrable bubbles.
As I see this , this will change to some degree due to factions in RefUK's support coalition and how they develop.
Amongst others, we have 1 - the 'heroes' at the top, 2 - the genuine far-righters who from polling seem to be about 15-20% including 3 - the entryists who were called to enter by eg Mark Collett of Patriotic Alternative *, 4 - the tactical supporters who can see no alternative (many in Ashfield, for example), 5 - those more aware people who have nonetheless swallowed the shtick, and 6 - mushrooms in political silos who do not hear alternatives (GB News listeners?).
I'd say that the first 3 groups will hold to the line, and the latter 3 will fracture away.
They have a particular problem with forces types to whom they have sold their stance as being "patriotic", and then when their 'heroes' such as Farage have turned around and tried to triangulate JD Vance pissing on UK armed forces people who died fighting alongside USA services in recent wars. There's a *lot* of anger around in ex-services communities.
* As Collett put it in "Heritage and Destiny" magazine: ".. in a very real sense, a dedicated group of ethno-nationalists who have not been previously politically exposed could join Reform UK and do great things – effectively turning them into a vehicle for something better and more robust”.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Trust me, on this I really care about the issue. It’s a fucking disgrace
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
OK, so its not Two Tier Keir then is it. Why are you blaming the new government for the failings of the previous one? I get that they aren't acting quickly enough for you on this subject. But *they didn't do this*. And yet you blame them.
Because
1 this all comes from Wokeness and Critical Race Theory and Equity of Outcome
2 New Labour devised this sentencing quango
3 Mahmoud is already lying about “not tolerating it” - she knew it was coming and got caught (or was gravely negligent)
4 Two Tier Kier is a thing. See the response to the Southport Riots
And
5 Under Labour Wokeness will only get worse. They will bleat about changing it but do the opposite. It’s in their DNA. Do you deny this?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Doesn't rhyme. And I'm afraid the regular use of "Two Tier Keir" is becoming akin to wearing an "I'm a racist wanker" badge.
In other words, like “Rachel from Accounts”, you don’t like “Two Tier Keir” because it is effective, because it says something true, in a neat and clever way
Most political nicknames are silly and ineffective, these aren’t
It's not like that. Constant use of "Rachel from Accounts" is also like wearing an "I'm a wanker" badge but it's a different sort of wanker, in that case a sexist one (note how women never use the epithet). Couse there is a high degree of overlap. There are plenty of people proud to sport both of those badges on their lapel. Which is good. It means you can spot them and take appropriate action.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
The last real change of 'regime' we had was in 1997 and since then we've had broad continuity regardless of which party was in power.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
If white working class boys are getting longer sentences than their peers in areas where white people are a minority, these kind of pre-sentencing reports could help to prevent two-tier justice.
Do women typically get longer sentences than men for the same crime? I thought the reverse was true.
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
They’re building a bunch of them to be launched over the next few years; looks like the MoD got the memo about the potential loss of Five Eyes data much earlier than everyone else did.
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
The problem is that we almost certainly rely on Elon Musk to launch said satellites.
Did you know Britain has a space base in Sheltland? I was delighted when I found out. You can have a look around it on Google Streetview - it has a slightly cold war feel. Perhaps that could be used, somehow (I know almost nothing about the practicalities of this sort of thing).
A friend was commissioned to design rockets for the MoD that they were going to launch up there. Some great stories about the guys running the place: Real old school military types.
https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1897400210223140968 “Washington has become Nero’s court, with an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers and a jester high on ketamine in charge of purging the civil service...”
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
The last real change of 'regime' we had was in 1997 and since then we've had broad continuity regardless of which party was in power.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
No Australia and Canada and NZ are first as we share the King as our head of state with them and our language and similar ancestry.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
NATO is dead - we haven't yet formally wound it up but as Article 5 no longer applies then the whole concept of mutual defence is over. That then imperils the five eyes intelligence group and so on and so on.
My response to who is first is all of them. UK / Canada / Australia / NZ are the Four Eyes intelligence group. UK is in rNATO as are France et al, with Japan, S Korea, Singapore and others as strategic allies.
With the shuttering of NATO and Five Eyes, we need to rapidly evolve the alliance and that means everyone.
Starmer announced support for Ukraine in a way that boosts our economy. Germany is lifting its borrowing cap and will be investing in ways that boosts its economy. War footing economies can be very effective - many allied economies have been stagnant for a long time. The end of NATO is a political jolt but can also be a positive economic one.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am now ramping the idea that we need to invest heavily in defence. But we do, and we need investment in our economy. Its an opportunity we have to grasp in this new phase of our world order.
Worth noting that while Starmer's public position is the inviolability of the USA/NATO deal, his best friend Macron is charged with a slightly different position, reflecting of course the UK's true stance, as the Guardian reports his words:
He further said said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our [nuclear] deterrent” but stressed any use of France’s nuclear weapons would remain only in the hands of the French president.
Macron said in his address: “I want to believe the US will stay by our side. But we have to be ready if that isn’t the case.
“Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow, and yes the threat from the east is returning. And the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”
The second approach is to decide to suck it all up for four years, in the hope that things will then get easier. This means accepting the likelihood, though never saying so publicly, that Trump is always going to be destructive and mean-spirited. At the same time, it means working to keep US links – especially military and intelligence links – strong enough to be revived more effectively after 2028...
For Starmer, this could mean a lot of firefighting over the next four years, without any certainty of a post-Trump dividend or British public approval. Such fires could break out on any number of issues, including not just Ukraine but also the Middle East, bilateral trade, Nato, US-EU relations and, judging by this week’s speech, Canada, Greenland and the Panama canal...
Which leaves the third strategy. This is to accept that Trump’s approach is now the US’s new normal and that there will be no comforting return to past arrangements. Whoever comes after Trump may be friendlier, more rational and less rude. Either way, US exceptionalism, isolationism and disengagement from Europe are likely to be here to stay. So too are the immensely tough consequences for countries like Britain, which can no longer rely on a US security and intelligence shield against Russia or any other hostile states. Rearmament is back. This will require something close to a war economy, and it cannot be created overnight.
At present, Starmer has one foot in the first approach and another in the second. But it is the third approach that will loom largest as an option as the next four years unfold. None of these is a soft option, and all of them overlap. Starmer is right, for example, to oppose false binary choices between Europe and the US.
Nevertheless, if Trump’s speech to Congress is to be taken seriously, this is a president who has changed sides in the battle of values between democracy and authoritarianism. Starmer may feel he has to tell Europe that Trump will still “have our backs”. But Trump could just as soon stab Europe in the back too. After all, that’s exactly what he just did...
I read Kettle's piece with some trepidation. Interesting though it does feel more like the work of a political commentator rather than a geostrategist. The question is what leverage do we have with Trump? I'm all for maintaining cordial relations at this stage without altering our foreign policy. Most importantly that means he cannot present his version of peace in the war as a fait accompli to us. However by saying that a European military presence in Ukraine requires an American backstop Starmer is effectively giving the US the last word.
But why do we keep playing Putin's game? Why would we want to put lots of boots on the ground rather than provide air cover across Ukraine? If Putin keeps saying no, we need to start putting these things on the table. He can't keep rejecting everything and maintain the presence of someone wanting to end the war. And Trump looks a dunce if he can't appear to exercise any leverage over him. People will say, oh that's risky. Well maintaining peace in Europe on reasonable terms with the current Russian government will require some risk. The alternative is to say 'well he's so crazy we better give him what he wants.' That will mean continual Russian power plays westwards.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
On your first point, the same is true of Turkey - the Ottoman Empire once bestrode the world, and Erdogan has explicitly referenced that past, and seems to have clear ambitions of a greater Turkey. His territorial ambitions are also more directly opposed to our interests given the strategic importance of our military base on Cyprus.
On your final point, broadly I agree, but we need to be careful that we are doing this, not doing stupid things like giving away Chagos as part of our military budget.
We're not giving them away. They're not ours. Legally. Which is why HMG started the negotiation to hand them back to their rightful owner. The US may not care about international law, but we do.
We have maintained administration over a US military base. We're diverging with the US as allies. If they lose Diego Garcia it's their problem not ours. With Trump now backing Putin are we not going to be decoupling ourselves anyway?
On your first point, they ARE ours legally. We are only with the court in question on the explicit understanding that its judgements on matters concerning sovereignty in the Commonwealth are ADVISORY ONLY. Mauritius gave up its claim and were handsomely compensated at the time. This is a political choice.
On your second point I agree. So why are we paying? Let the US sort it out. If the US is an unreliable ally, why are we paying for a 99 year lease on a military base for them?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Trust me, on this I really care about the issue. It’s a fucking disgrace
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
OK, so its not Two Tier Keir then is it. Why are you blaming the new government for the failings of the previous one? I get that they aren't acting quickly enough for you on this subject. But *they didn't do this*. And yet you blame them.
But - unless I am misunderstanding, which I may be - they ARE doing this. The legislation that white men must serve longer sentences may have been drafted under the previous miasma, but it is being introduced under this one. And unless they stop it, it's right that we blame this one.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
It's the Trumpian approach to conflict resolution: simply give the stronger party whatever it needs to finish off the weaker party. Hey presto: peace!
Next up, allying with China against Taiwan. Get that one done and dusted.
On that one far from it, Trump has unfreezed secrurity aid to Taiwan and the Trump administration has also told the State Dept to take down the declaration all other US administrations since Nixon have had that 'we do not support Taiwan's independence'
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
The last real change of 'regime' we had was in 1997 and since then we've had broad continuity regardless of which party was in power.
No 2019 delivered Brexit, 2010 austerity
Austerity is just a propaganda term and Brexit failed to be used as a trigger for domestic reform.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
If white working class boys are getting longer sentences than their peers in areas where white people are a minority, these kind of pre-sentencing reports could help to prevent two-tier justice.
Yes but white working class boys and wwc men weren't included in the groups who should get pre sentence reports, as unlike women and ethnic and non Christian minorities white working class men are more likely to be deplorables who prefer Farage to Labour
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Trust me, on this I really care about the issue. It’s a fucking disgrace
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
OK, so its not Two Tier Keir then is it. Why are you blaming the new government for the failings of the previous one? I get that they aren't acting quickly enough for you on this subject. But *they didn't do this*. And yet you blame them.
But - unless I am misunderstanding, which I may be - they ARE doing this. The legislation that white men must serve longer sentences may have been drafted under the previous miasma, but it is being introduced under this one. And unless they stop it, it's right that we blame this one.
Actually this goes back to what Liz Truss has been banging on about. Independent Quangos that have extremely political agendas that are blissfully unaffected by electoral politics. These bodies need to be abolished, and their basis in law revoked. Nobody voted for this, and a vanishing minority ever would.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
@Luckyguy1983's analysis is generally sound, but it does miss the extent to which Russia interferes in the affairs of other countries.
For example, it's funding of environmental groups in Poland with the goal of getting fracking banned. (Which I admit, I am particularly sore about, as I owned a large chunk of Poland's shale gas assets at the time. And I completely missed the political risk.)
OGH * was nearly an oligarch? That's a turn up !
* I'm officially promoting @rcs1000 ; Mike is now OGH Emeritus - if both will consent .
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Trust me, on this I really care about the issue. It’s a fucking disgrace
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
OK, so its not Two Tier Keir then is it. Why are you blaming the new government for the failings of the previous one? I get that they aren't acting quickly enough for you on this subject. But *they didn't do this*. And yet you blame them.
But - unless I am misunderstanding, which I may be - they ARE doing this. The legislation that white men must serve longer sentences may have been drafted under the previous miasma, but it is being introduced under this one. And unless they stop it, it's right that we blame this one.
It is not that though is it? It's sort of like a Rooney Rule for sentencing reports. That does not negate the ability to make an argument about possible reverse discriminatory effects, but it doesn't necessarily make those so.
Are sentencing reports at the sole discretion of the judge or can defence teams ask for them? Depending on the answer, a lot of the potential new biases inherent in getting full reports to understand current biases in sentencing could be avoided?
Comments
I would suggest that that may be due to insufficient coordination with his Government, and he went off-piste when he should have been pretending he was on-piste; that or the home Government has reverse-ferreted in some way and left him hanging. Phil Goff is a very experienced politician, so it's a bit of a surprise.
That seems to be in contrast to the Lammy-Starmer-Mandelson triple-act - so far at least !
I have a deep distrust for China. But, incredibly, I find myself questioning now whether China has risen above the USA in our list of foreign powers to be trusted.
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
That seems to me to be massively significant”
https://x.com/hzeffman/status/1897542893814100129?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
There was clear evidence in advance that this would be a vote for authoritarianism, corruption, undermining of the constitution, a deadly cult of personality, weaponisation of the justice system and fatal overturning of the rule of law. You could also argue Surely the Nordics are in our top tier of allies?
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
A fairly large part of that $4bn package is for 2000lb bombs.
There are no immediately obvious military targets for those.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/christopher-luxon-floats-sending-royal-new-zealand-navy-ship-into-south-china-sea/MZ4Y23WSW5FU5NTQ63R7CAVYZQ/
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/06/keir-starmer-donald-trump-foreign-policy-politics
.. This is essentially the strategy that Starmer is now pursuing on Ukraine. It is why he keeps talking to Trump – three times in the past week, perhaps contributing to Trump’s relatively polite mention of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the speech to Congress.....
The second approach is to decide to suck it all up for four years, in the hope that things will then get easier. This means accepting the likelihood, though never saying so publicly, that Trump is always going to be destructive and mean-spirited. At the same time, it means working to keep US links – especially military and intelligence links – strong enough to be revived more effectively after 2028...
For Starmer, this could mean a lot of firefighting over the next four years, without any certainty of a post-Trump dividend or British public approval. Such fires could break out on any number of issues, including not just Ukraine but also the Middle East, bilateral trade, Nato, US-EU relations and, judging by this week’s speech, Canada, Greenland and the Panama canal...
Which leaves the third strategy. This is to accept that Trump’s approach is now the US’s new normal and that there will be no comforting return to past arrangements. Whoever comes after Trump may be friendlier, more rational and less rude. Either way, US exceptionalism, isolationism and disengagement from Europe are likely to be here to stay. So too are the immensely tough consequences for countries like Britain, which can no longer rely on a US security and intelligence shield against Russia or any other hostile states. Rearmament is back. This will require something close to a war economy, and it cannot be created overnight.
At present, Starmer has one foot in the first approach and another in the second. But it is the third approach that will loom largest as an option as the next four years unfold. None of these is a soft option, and all of them overlap. Starmer is right, for example, to oppose false binary choices between Europe and the US.
Nevertheless, if Trump’s speech to Congress is to be taken seriously, this is a president who has changed sides in the battle of values between democracy and authoritarianism. Starmer may feel he has to tell Europe that Trump will still “have our backs”. But Trump could just as soon stab Europe in the back too. After all, that’s exactly what he just did...
And Lenin.
Still, it's hard not to feel like Nico67 - so hard that I can't quite manage it. Donald Trump didn't hide his unfitness for office, he flaunted it, and yet 77m voted for him. They would have had their reasons but none of them are remotely good enough. It was a crime as far as I'm concerned and if many of those who committed it feel some pain as a result, well there are sadder things in this world.
Revealed: peer’s offer to get meetings with ministers for potential client
Richard Dannatt told undercover reporters he could make introductions, despite House of Lords ban on lobbying
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/06/richard-dannatt-peer-meetings-ministers-potential-client-house-of-lords
...Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British army, was secretly filmed telling undercover reporters he could make introductions within the government and that he would “make a point of getting to know” the best-placed minister, despite rules prohibiting peers from lobbying.
He added he could easily “rub shoulders” with the right people in the Lords if he needed to approach a minister in order to promote the potential client.
Lord Dannatt also said he had previously introduced a company, in which he was given a shareholding, to a minister and civil servants.
At the beginning and end of the meeting with the reporters, the crossbench peer said he was “very wary and nervous” because he had been the target of an undercover sting by the press more than a decade ago.
He said he did not want a repeat of an “extraordinarily embarrassing” episode. Dannatt was cleared of any wrongdoing on the previous occasion...
However decent any future US government might be (and it's hard to see how they could be more indecent than the current lot), there is no way we can allow ourselves to become dependent upon them.
Another popular comparison is that a million seconds is eleven minutes; a billion seconds is 31 years.
Governments that treat their own people like shit are not going to treat foreign clients any better.
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
As I see it with the USA is that they have burnt down 75 years of trust, political capital and all the rest in a month, including much of their own democratic system and international law (Trump's EO assaulting the International Criminal Court, for example, or his abolition of bodies protecting the USA against Russia).
Even if sanity is restored at the top of USA politics, half of the problems are in the fragile underlying system and the people who now stack it - many on lifetime appointments, such as Judge Cannon who is now 43. Very major reform is needed, and it may take 50 years to work through - just as with the German system still stacked with former Nazi people after WW2, and eg the after-effects of the Gehlen organisation on German intelligence services.
For personal examples, consider Charles Colson, who after Watergate converted, repented, pled guilty, and went to prison. The reality was demonstrated by the next 30 years.
For a UK equivalent I think the best I can mention off the top of my head may be Jonathon Aitken, though I don't know what he did with his millions which might have been the hardest part for his conversion to have reached.
As a counter example, consider Russell Brand - who was baptised last year. I'm inclined, until I see a long-term change (say 10 years), to think that this is likely to be his latest mask. That someone who's long-term problem seems to have been abuse of women, it is not a good sign that afaics he seems to be continuing to sell himself as a guru for women seeking "wellness". I think Bear Grylls may end up a little embarrassed at his over-optimism.
And ironically and somewhat cynically, Jenrick chose to stir the pot on the same afternoon that Kemi had her best PMQs since records began.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
And FWIW (as I said yesterday) yes the Tories must carry hefty loads of blame for all this. They had 14 years to roll back Woke; they didn’t - they made it worse
And for that they “need to be vomited into the bucket
of bye-bye, and hurled onto the dungheap of doomsday”. My words yesterday. Pithy enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmyt7ckVTo
And Hamas tunnels are typically both not well mapped, and 20-30m below the surface.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2017.1399878#ack
The US sent Israel 14,000 of them over the last couple of years.
If your theory was even a bit right, they probably wouldn't need another urgent shipment this month.
1) To yourself: enjoy the "I told you so" moment of someone admitting they were wrong and facing the consequences of their own actions, just as so many others are who could not vote.
2) To the person: be conciliatory and don't be a dick.
If everyone in the US can keep the "part 1" thoughts to themselves then we'll have a better chance of said people actually helping to remove the Republican control of congress in 2-years.
We should be similarly magnanimous on PB with any previous Trump supporters (or sympathisers) who have seen the light.
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Most political nicknames are silly and ineffective, these aren’t
So, I think it is highly likely we will get stung too.
A generation ago, there would be plenty of Republican Representatives and Senators pushing back against Trump. People like Hegseth and Gabbard would never have been voted through.
These days, as noted upthread, the Congressional Republicans are a claque of performing seals.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
All:
Enemy/Unfriendly: 48%
Ally/Friend: 29%
Among Trump Voters:
Enemy/Unfriendly: 79%
Ally/Friend: 11%
YouGov / Mar 4, 2025 / n=1638
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-space-command-successfully-launches-first-military-satellite
They’re building a bunch of them to be launched over the next few years; looks like the MoD got the memo about the potential loss of Five Eyes data much earlier than everyone else did: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-to-get-new-spy-satellites-in-127m-deal/
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
https://www.cnbc.com/2011/09/12/implement-vat-cut-all-income-taxes-to-create-jobs-ross.html
“We need something that is very far-reaching, very dramatic,” said Ross, the head of W.L. Ross & Co. “An idea I’ve been in favor of is to scrap all of the corporate income taxes, all of the individual income taxes, and substitute a value-added tax on all goods imported into the country and manufactured and consumed here, and then rebate it on exports.”
“Europeans make the mistake of regarding Trump as an overmighty would-be emperor. In fact, he is actuated by a nagging sense of weakness. He must either strike enough deals around the world to power and equip his country’s economy, or face an unacceptable level of dependence on China, the most powerful industrial and military foe the US has ever faced.”
https://x.com/nfergus/status/1897581485147783498?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Trump is a symptom of relative American DECLINE, not a new world-tyrant of a mighty surging power. That may not be much consolation as he trashes NATO, mind
ESG is a waste of time. Mostly box ticking. Just be done with it.
https://x.com/ms_alex_baker/status/1897546808349343937?s=61
That would make a nice change.
The world needs to stop letting Trump set the agenda, which he will be allowed to do as long as people fear the consequences of saying 'no'.
Shame we canned our own launch system in the 70s just as we got it working. If we have to stand up our own SLICBM program from scratch it’s going to be very expensive. Maybe we’ll be able to convince the French to give us technical support?
Amongst others, we have 1 - the 'heroes' at the top, 2 - the genuine far-righters who from polling seem to be about 15-20% including 3 - the entryists who were called to enter by eg Mark Collett of Patriotic Alternative *, 4 - the tactical supporters who can see no alternative (many in Ashfield, for example), 5 - those more aware people who have nonetheless swallowed the shtick, and 6 - mushrooms in political silos who do not hear alternatives (GB News listeners?).
I'd say that the first 3 groups will hold to the line, and the latter 3 will fracture away.
They have a particular problem with forces types to whom they have sold their stance as being "patriotic", and then when their 'heroes' such as Farage have turned around and tried to triangulate JD Vance pissing on UK armed forces people who died fighting alongside USA services in recent wars. There's a *lot* of anger around in ex-services communities.
* As Collett put it in "Heritage and Destiny" magazine:
".. in a very real sense, a dedicated group of ethno-nationalists who have not been previously politically exposed could join Reform UK and do great things – effectively turning them into a vehicle for something better and more robust”.
1 this all comes from Wokeness and Critical Race Theory and Equity of Outcome
2 New Labour devised this sentencing quango
3 Mahmoud is already lying about “not tolerating it” - she knew it was coming and got caught (or was gravely negligent)
4 Two Tier Kier is a thing. See the response to the Southport Riots
And
5 Under Labour Wokeness will only get worse. They will bleat about changing it but do the opposite. It’s in their DNA. Do you deny this?
https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1897400210223140968
“Washington has become Nero’s court, with an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers and a jester high on ketamine in charge of purging the civil service...”
Someone like Leon I suppose?
But why do we keep playing Putin's game? Why would we want to put lots of boots on the ground rather than provide air cover across Ukraine? If Putin keeps saying no, we need to start putting these things on the table. He can't keep rejecting everything and maintain the presence of someone wanting to end the war. And Trump looks a dunce if he can't appear to exercise any leverage over him. People will say, oh that's risky. Well maintaining peace in Europe on reasonable terms with the current Russian government will require some risk. The alternative is to say 'well he's so crazy we better give him what he wants.' That will mean continual Russian power plays westwards.
On your second point I agree. So why are we paying? Let the US sort it out. If the US is an unreliable ally, why are we paying for a 99 year lease on a military base for them?
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/27/g-s1-50823/trump-china-taiwan-foreign-security-aid
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trumps-support-for-taiwan-has-infuriated-beijing/
* I'm officially promoting @rcs1000 ; Mike is now OGH Emeritus - if both will consent
Are sentencing reports at the sole discretion of the judge or can defence teams ask for them? Depending on the answer, a lot of the potential new biases inherent in getting full reports to understand current biases in sentencing could be avoided?