“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
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.
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.
He's a human being.
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
He's a tosser. We are all paying a price because of him and tossers like him. Some are paying with their lives.
Why should we care about him?
In particular ? Probably not much, unless he's in our circle of acquaintance.
But in general, absolutely we should. If you believe democracy is still a viable form of government, then you have to be open to your opponents changing their minds in the face if evidence. You might think him an idiot, but how does that make him any different from a large number of voters ?
The other point, of course, is that the damage Trump's policies do isn't confined to those who voted for him.
It's easy to confuse a lack of political engagement with stupidity, and there are very few people stupid enough to not understand what kind of individual Trump is.
My sympathy is limited because his behaviour has been exactly in line with what I and others expected. That lack of care will extend to Democrats too if they don't start to kick up a fuss - put your protests where your mouth is.
Is his behaviour exactly in line with your expectations though?
I assumed he would be greedy and amoral. A grifter - basically like his first term with an edge of nastiness and possibly some personal scores to be settled
I’ll hold my hands and say I didn’t expect this. It was, of course, a scenario my team wargamed, but it certainly wasn’t the base case
"Do you consider the media to be a friend or enemy of the American people?"
All: Enemy/Unfriendly: 48% Ally/Friend: 29%
Among Trump Voters: Enemy/Unfriendly: 79% Ally/Friend: 11%
YouGov / Mar 4, 2025 / n=1638
This is why people vote for Trump. Because they don't know who Trump is, they're in a MAGA bubble and either don't hear any negative stories about Trump, or reject them out of hand. They're fed a diet of lies and propaganda. If you believe everything Fox News says, then voting Trump is entirely logical.
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:
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.
You can buy commercial imagery down to 30cm resolution.
Which is enough for nearly all tasks.
The American military/NRO is a huge buyer of commercial imagery. There are orders of magnitude more commercial imagery satellites than military systems and their costs are vastly lower.
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.
Trump is in a trade war with China
What if China offered him a deal - a free hand with Taiwan, in return for supporting Trump's territorial claims elsewhere?
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.
People from ethnic minority groups typically get longer sentences. Men get longer sentences. Attractive people get shorter sentences, except on fraud charges, where they get longer sentences. People sentenced just before lunch tend to get longer sentences than people sentenced just after lunch. A lot of sentencing biases have been studied.
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.
That America is gone.
I don't think so, I think it's just hibernating. Americans will remember eventually but it mat be too late for them to take back the mantle.
The thing is, US society is split down the middle. There's a huge swathe of Americans, notably on the coasts but in every major city, that think like us and other Europeans - broadly rational, educated, open, outwards looking. Then there's a larger group, of assorted religious fanatics, racists and the profoundly ignorant - these are people who would vote for Trump even if he came over to their house and took a dump on the carpet. In the middle there is a whole load of people who are too busy working to even look up and see what's happening. As long as gasoline prices are kept down they'll be happy with whatever. This swing group might vote with the first group sometimes, and the second group other times. So we may get a swing back from extreme MAGA at some point. But it should be obvious to everyone in Europe and the broader West that the US is no longer a reliable ally. I also wonder how long those first two groups can cohabit in the same country. There is a profound clash of values.
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
the guidance for PSR also includes young adults (18-25) sole or primary carers first custodial or custodial sentence likely to be <2 years those with addiction issues those with learning disabilities those who may have been victims of abuse
That must be nearing 100% of those likely to be given a custodial sentence
I think in time, after the immediate crisis has passed, we will see a Europe that has, yes, gone through a painful rebalancing of its economy and security but is a reliable partner, a safe haven for investment, pluralistic, and maintaining cautious but beneficial relations with China and the other emerging economies.
The USA in the meantime has destroyed its international trustworthiness and its legal system and will be increasingly seen as an unreliable party in international relations. Its decline will continue.
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 .
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
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?
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.
Trump is in a trade war with China
What if China offered him a deal - a free hand with Taiwan, in return for supporting Trump's territorial claims elsewhere?
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 .
Not quite: in a previous life I was the energy lead at a large investment fund. And my investment in Polish shale gas was one of my worst missteps.
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.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
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.
Trump is in a trade war with China
What if China offered him a deal - a free hand with Taiwan, in return for supporting Trump's territorial claims elsewhere?
Trump doesn't need Chinese support to take Greenland or even Canada or the Panama Canal, not that he would get anything beyond abstention anyway.
China is also the biggest US economic rival now, hence Trump's tariff war with Beijing. No nation recognises Taiwan anyway, Biden would have done sod all had China invaded Taiwan provided it didn't move to Japan and S Korea as well, at least Trump has shifted to not opposing Taiwan independence against Chinese opposition and sent them security aid
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
If you get a pre sentence report, you are less likely to go to jail. White men are now less likely to get a PSR, so more likely to go to jail. Just because of their skin colour. Ergo, the guidelines are racist
Incidentally, do you know how they test for this ethnicity? Do they use a colour chart, or a pencil, or something? Seems important
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 .
Not really. OGH is still alive.
That' not how it works, generally:
Emeritus is an honorary title given to someone who has retired from a distinguished position, but can still use their previous title. For example, a retired professor might be called "professor emeritus".
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
What absurd nonsense. If Miliband had allowed Obama to continue, the result would surely have been another Iraq quagmire, abd even worse damage to the West's reputation, troops, and resources.
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.
Has no one told him that those companies get a refund in a "you know they get refunded, right?" kind of way.
As someone on here pointed out when I said the above there are plenty of examples where the refund has been delayed for months /years.
So while VAT isn’t a tariff it can look like one if your paperwork isn’t perfect and the VAT people aren’t rushing to help people out
I get that, but (while it is cumbersome and bureaucratic) it is still not a tariff: it is merely a different way of implementing a sales/consumption tax.
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:
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.
You can buy commercial imagery down to 30cm resolution.
Which is enough for nearly all tasks.
The American military/NRO is a huge buyer of commercial imagery. There are orders of magnitude more commercial imagery satellites than military systems and their costs are vastly lower.
Sure: I presume the MoD looked at the likely geopolitics of the near future & decided that having a few of our own imaging / synthetic aperture radar satellites available was worth the expense, just in case we got locked out of access to the commercial sources.
Just as we /could/ just use Starlink, but maintaining a small constellation of comms satellites for military use is a prudent insurance policy.
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
the guidance for PSR also includes young adults (18-25) sole or primary carers first custodial or custodial sentence likely to be
So not wwc males over 25 then with no issues while women and ethnic minorities and minority faith members were to be added
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 was explained this morning that the conservatives objected to the recommendation but labour won the election, and the subsquent minutes show labour were represented at three meetings when the issue was discussed but did not talk to Mahmood who agrees it is not acceptable
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
the guidance for PSR also includes young adults (18-25) sole or primary carers first custodial or custodial sentence likely to be
So not wwc males over 25 then with no issues while women and ethnic minorities and minority faith members were to be added
The idea that “if you’re Muslim” you should be considered for a non custodial sentence (but not if you’re Christian) is particularly insulting, pernicious and immoral
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Certainly compelling, in the sense of dazzlingly imaginary.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Certainly compelling, in the sense of dazzlingly imaginary.
I forgot to mention that he also abolished the Labour electoral college which allowed Corbyn to become leader.
I’m not saying he is a Russian agent, but if he were, he couldn’t have done a better job.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
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
the guidance for PSR also includes young adults (18-25) sole or primary carers first custodial or custodial sentence likely to be
So not wwc males over 25 then with no issues while women and ethnic minorities and minority faith members were to be added
The idea that “if you’re Muslim” you should be considered for a non custodial sentence (but not if you’re Christian) is particularly insulting, pernicious and immoral
And Labour wonder why so many white working class voters now vote for Farage!
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Is "compelling" a synonym of "bollocks"?
A direct can be easily drawn between Miliband's Syria treachery and the Ukraine war.
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:
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.
You can buy commercial imagery down to 30cm resolution.
Which is enough for nearly all tasks.
The American military/NRO is a huge buyer of commercial imagery. There are orders of magnitude more commercial imagery satellites than military systems and their costs are vastly lower.
Sure: I presume the MoD looked at the likely geopolitics of the near future & decided that having a few of our own imaging / synthetic aperture radar satellites available was worth the expense, just in case we got locked out of access to the commercial sources.
Just as we /could/ just use Starlink, but maintaining a small constellation of comms satellites for military use is a prudent insurance policy.
You want military satellites for specific needs - also the classic if-you-use-something-enough-owning-it-is-cheaper.
The biggest driver in more sats is probably the discovery that they don’t need to cost squillions.
Iridium mass production of sats, followed by various other constellations and now Starlink, has put a stake through the heart of the billion dollar custom satellite thing. Cheap satellites are here….
There are various companies setting up to provide cheaper “buses” - basic satellite frame work, power, solar panels etc. So even small scale or individual sat costs are falling massively.
The big problem for Europe is launch. SpaceX has a marginal *cost* of less than $20 million to get to LEO. Which is why Starlink is affordable.
Ariane 6 *costs* in the region of $100 million and has much lower availability.
The Themis project was supposed to get Europe into the reusable game, but has alternated between being moved forward and people in ArianeSpace and ESA being fired for promoting it.
Europe needs a mega constellation - which means at least an F9 cost structure.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Certainly compelling, in the sense of dazzlingly imaginary.
I forgot to mention that he also abolished the Labour electoral college which allowed Corbyn to become leader.
I’m not saying he is a Russian agent, but if he were, he couldn’t have done a better job.
Corbyn was a temporary outlet for the failure of neoliberalism.
Johnson was a gurning charlatan who one night made the decision to leave Europe in the very presence of an actual and likely Russian agent, Lebedev.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
There is a quick-ish fix. A simple rule (whether ministerial instruction, or legislation - I'm not sure which applies here ?) that the quango may consider ethnic etc disparities in sentencing, but it cannot assume that they arise purely from ethnic (etc) bias - there are almost always possible confounding factors - and it may not propose similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) rules as remedies.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Compelling if you accept American foreign and military policy ever depended on Ed Miliband, leader of HM Opposition, not even the government.
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.
That America is gone.
I don't think so, I think it's just hibernating. Americans will remember eventually but it mat be too late for them to take back the mantle.
The thing is, US society is split down the middle. There's a huge swathe of Americans, notably on the coasts but in every major city, that think like us and other Europeans - broadly rational, educated, open, outwards looking. Then there's a larger group, of assorted religious fanatics, racists and the profoundly ignorant - these are people who would vote for Trump even if he came over to their house and took a dump on the carpet. In the middle there is a whole load of people who are too busy working to even look up and see what's happening. As long as gasoline prices are kept down they'll be happy with whatever. This swing group might vote with the first group sometimes, and the second group other times. So we may get a swing back from extreme MAGA at some point. But it should be obvious to everyone in Europe and the broader West that the US is no longer a reliable ally. I also wonder how long those first two groups can cohabit in the same country. There is a profound clash of values.
PBpedantry: it's quaking because it's *not* splitting apart ... indeed an example of an intraplate quake (recently, as it happens, read a most interestingbook on the NME and their public image: The Lost History of the New Madrid Earthquakes Paperback – Illustrated, 24 Mar. 2015 by Conevery Bolton Valencius)
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
Except he wasn't even in government. I know the Tories were crap, but they didn't have all their policies made by the Opposition.
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?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Certainly compelling, in the sense of dazzlingly imaginary.
I forgot to mention that he also abolished the Labour electoral college which allowed Corbyn to become leader.
I’m not saying he is a Russian agent, but if he were, he couldn’t have done a better job.
I have little time for Milliband, however is this classic gaslighting? No one would be surprised if William's old mucker Trump turned out to be a Russian asset, and where are we with a bunga bunga partying Foreign Secretary?
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.
Trump is in a trade war with China
What if China offered him a deal - a free hand with Taiwan, in return for supporting Trump's territorial claims elsewhere?
Trump doesn't need Chinese support to take Greenland or even Canada or the Panama Canal, not that he would get anything beyond abstention anyway.
China is also the biggest US economic rival now, hence Trump's tariff war with Beijing. No nation recognises Taiwan anyway, Biden would have done sod all had China invaded Taiwan provided it didn't move to Japan and S Korea as well, at least Trump has shifted to not opposing Taiwan independence against Chinese opposition and sent them security aid
Belize and Paraguay recognise Taiwan. Tuvalu too. #pbpedantry
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
Except he wasn't even in government. I know the Tories were crap, but they didn't have all their policies made by the Opposition.
You sure? Our Tories on PB have been going on for months blaming SKS & Co for the sentencing rules put into place under their own administration.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Certainly compelling, in the sense of dazzlingly imaginary.
I forgot to mention that he also abolished the Labour electoral college which allowed Corbyn to become leader.
I’m not saying he is a Russian agent, but if he were, he couldn’t have done a better job.
I fear Miliband's biggest problem was not some pro-Russia bias, but simplistic, one-dimensional thinking. Actions had no consequences beyond the obvious one stated by the policy.
There's a place for such thinking at times, but I fear it is all he had. But IMV he was also not someone who was swept by the voices he last heard; he had a firm and fairly consistent viewpoint.
So I'd say the problem was one of delivery, not the actual desired aims of the policies.
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.
Trump is in a trade war with China
What if China offered him a deal - a free hand with Taiwan, in return for supporting Trump's territorial claims elsewhere?
Trump doesn't need Chinese support to take Greenland or even Canada or the Panama Canal, not that he would get anything beyond abstention anyway.
China is also the biggest US economic rival now, hence Trump's tariff war with Beijing. No nation recognises Taiwan anyway, Biden would have done sod all had China invaded Taiwan provided it didn't move to Japan and S Korea as well, at least Trump has shifted to not opposing Taiwan independence against Chinese opposition and sent them security aid
Belize and Paraguay recognise Taiwan. Tuvalu too. #pbpedantry
Well I am sure Taiwan will show Beijing the boot if it tries to invade thanks to the forces and arms Belize, Tuvalu and Paraguay would send to support it
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
Duncan Smith, unless I am mistaken never became important enough to declare was on Sadam. That was Blair's gig.
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
There is a quick-ish fix. A simple rule (whether ministerial instruction, or legislation - I'm not sure which applies here ?) that the quango may consider ethnic etc disparities in sentencing, but it cannot assume that they arise purely from ethnic (etc) bias - there are almost always possible confounding factors - and it may not propose similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) rules as remedies.
No-one is assuming that disparities in sentencing by ethnicity are purely from ethnic bias.
Judges make sentencing decisions and are required to consider all relevant factors.
There's nothing that made America look weaker, and also lose moral.support by killing thousands in the process, than losing wars.
Syria would have been just another to add to Iraq and Vietnam, accelerating the process of decline, even.
Would you say that Russia's far greater loss in Syria made Russia look weaker, and lost it moral support?
No, because Russia made no claims as expansive as the West's in Iraq, to be undermined, and mainly just bombed civilians from the air.
That's utter rubbish AIUI.
I wouldn't agree, there. The U.S. prefaced it's Iraq disaster with a year of bombast about democracy, inevitable victory, and reassertion of its power after 9-11.
The Russians cast Syria, by contrast, as almost nakedly grim realpolitik, that the West had forgotten about. Stop the islamists and stop break-up, at almost any cost l.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Is "compelling" a synonym of "bollocks"?
It's a compelling illustration of a particular type of thinking (I'd hesitate to call it reasoning).
The US economy already appears on a rocky path with Trump. What is the ratio of US exports to Europe versus US exports to Russia? Maybe a little unfair given the sanctions but whether or not you agree with the boycotting of Israel (I don't) or the cultural boycotting of Russia post 2022, European consumers turning against the US would have a big impact. Trump has tried to bully countries politically by using the threat of tariffs. Well fine. But others will fight back in their own way.
The US economy already appears on a rocky path with Trump. What is the ratio of US exports to Europe versus US exports to Russia? Maybe a little unfair given the sanctions but whether or not you agree with the boycotting of Israel (I don't) or the cultural boycotting of Russia post 2022, European consumers turning against the US would have a big impact. Trump has tried to bully countries politically by using the threat of tariffs. Well fine. But others will fight back in their own way.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
Duncan Smith, unless I am mistaken never became important enough to declare was on Sadam. That was Blair's gig.
Cannot the entire world declare was on Sadam ? It's not exactly controversial
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
There is a quick-ish fix. A simple rule (whether ministerial instruction, or legislation - I'm not sure which applies here ?) that the quango may consider ethnic etc disparities in sentencing, but it cannot assume that they arise purely from ethnic (etc) bias - there are almost always possible confounding factors - and it may not propose similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) rules as remedies.
No-one is assuming that disparities in sentencing by ethnicity are purely from ethnic bias.
Judges make sentencing decisions and are required to consider all relevant factors.
My fix would have prevented the suggested new guidelines.
The US economy already appears on a rocky path with Trump. What is the ratio of US exports to Europe versus US exports to Russia? Maybe a little unfair given the sanctions but whether or not you agree with the boycotting of Israel (I don't) or the cultural boycotting of Russia post 2022, European consumers turning against the US would have a big impact. Trump has tried to bully countries politically by using the threat of tariffs. Well fine. But others will fight back in their own way.
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Is "compelling" a synonym of "bollocks"?
A direct can be easily drawn between Miliband's Syria treachery and the Ukraine war.
Treachery is a silly word to use. He may have been wrong but remember our interventions in the middle east had hardly been impressive.
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
There is a quick-ish fix. A simple rule (whether ministerial instruction, or legislation - I'm not sure which applies here ?) that the quango may consider ethnic etc disparities in sentencing, but it cannot assume that they arise purely from ethnic (etc) bias - there are almost always possible confounding factors - and it may not propose similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) rules as remedies.
No-one is assuming that disparities in sentencing by ethnicity are purely from ethnic bias.
Judges make sentencing decisions and are required to consider all relevant factors.
My fix would have prevented the suggested new guidelines.
Get building that European reusable launch system.
Eutelsat is in talks with the EU to supply additional internet access to Ukraine, it said on Tuesday, amid a two-day surge in its shares on the prospect that OneWeb satellites could replace Elon Musk's Starlink there, - Reuters
🇫🇷🇬🇧 Shares of the Franco-British satellite group have more than tripled in value over the past two days, adding over 1 billion euros ($1.05 billion) to their market capitalisation. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1896979968636207543
“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
That's in essence buying his whole "Make America Great Again" shtick.
There is another, more compelling, theory that Ed Miliband is to blame, not just for Trump, but for everything that's gone wrong in the West.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
That is compelling.
Is "compelling" a synonym of "bollocks"?
A direct can be easily drawn between Miliband's Syria treachery and the Ukraine war.
Treachery is a silly word to use. He may have been wrong but remember our interventions in the middle east had hardly been impressive.
The way he acted over the vote is why I refer to treachery.
Get building that European reusable launch system.
Eutelsat is in talks with the EU to supply additional internet access to Ukraine, it said on Tuesday, amid a two-day surge in its shares on the prospect that OneWeb satellites could replace Elon Musk's Starlink there, - Reuters
🇫🇷🇬🇧 Shares of the Franco-British satellite group have more than tripled in value over the past two days, adding over 1 billion euros ($1.05 billion) to their market capitalisation. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1896979968636207543
I still have no idea whether the UK government bailing out OneWeb was prescience or brexit-spasm, but it's looking pretty good in retrospect.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
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 .
RCS you are completely right about Russia's anti-fracking activities - they have also funded UK anti-fracking groups, something our centrist Dad anti-Russia brigade are oddly silent about.
Of course we should be wary of these types of attempts to influence policy for national gain, and come down hard on them. I'm afraid though that Russia is far from alone in these sorts of underhand tactics, especially in the field of energy.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
There is a quick-ish fix. A simple rule (whether ministerial instruction, or legislation - I'm not sure which applies here ?) that the quango may consider ethnic etc disparities in sentencing, but it cannot assume that they arise purely from ethnic (etc) bias - there are almost always possible confounding factors - and it may not propose similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) rules as remedies.
No-one is assuming that disparities in sentencing by ethnicity are purely from ethnic bias.
Judges make sentencing decisions and are required to consider all relevant factors.
My fix would have prevented the suggested new guidelines.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
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.
You are misunderstanding. It's not legislation: it's guidelines on presentencing reports. It doesn't say white men should serve longer sentences. Existing legislation is clear that sentencing should be fair and you can't give someone a shorter or longer sentence just because of their ethnicity, but you can take into account their personal circumstances (which may have been affected by their ethnicity).
There is a quick-ish fix. A simple rule (whether ministerial instruction, or legislation - I'm not sure which applies here ?) that the quango may consider ethnic etc disparities in sentencing, but it cannot assume that they arise purely from ethnic (etc) bias - there are almost always possible confounding factors - and it may not propose similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) rules as remedies.
No-one is assuming that disparities in sentencing by ethnicity are purely from ethnic bias.
Judges make sentencing decisions and are required to consider all relevant factors.
My fix would have prevented the suggested new guidelines.
A manufacturable platform for photonic quantum computing
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08820-7 Whilst holding great promise for low noise, ease of operation and networking [1], useful photonic quantum computing has been precluded by the need for beyond-state-of-the-art components, manufactured by the millions [2–6]. Here we introduce a manufacturable platform [7] for quantum computing with photons. We benchmark a set of monolithically-integrated silicon photonics-based modules to generate, manipulate, network, and detect heralded photonic qubits, demonstrating dual-rail photonic qubits with 99.98% ± 0.01% state preparation and measurement fidelity, Hong-Ou-Mandel quantum interference between independent photon sources with 99.50% ± 0.25% visibility, two-qubit fusion with 99.22% ± 0.12% fidelity, and a chip-to-chip qubit interconnect with 99.72% ± 0.04% fidelity, conditional on photon detection and not accounting for loss. We preview a selection of next-generation technologies—low-loss silicon nitride waveguides and components to address loss, as well as fabrication-tolerant photon sources, high-efficiency photon-number-resolving detectors, low-loss chip-to-fiber coupling, and barium titanate electro-optic phase shifters for high-performance fast switching...
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
You seem very up on this. You still haven’t told us how the courts will identify the ethnicity of the offender? Do they have a colour chart? A pencil?
Seems important because falling in “the right ethnic cohort” gives you a better chance of avoiding jail
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Jenrick would know this (Leon and the Daily Mail, not so much).
There's nothing that made America look weaker, and also lose moral.support by killing thousands in the process, than losing wars.
Syria would have been just another to add to Iraq and Vietnam, accelerating the process of decline, even.
Would you say that Russia's far greater loss in Syria made Russia look weaker, and lost it moral support?
No, because Russia made no claims as expansive as the West's in Iraq, to be undermined, and mainly just bombed civilians from the air.
That's utter rubbish AIUI.
I wouldn't agree, there. The U.S. prefaced it's Iraq disaster with a year of bombast about democracy, inevitable victory, and reassertion of its power after 9-11.
The Russians cast Syria, by contrast, as almost nakedly grim realpolitik, that the West had forgotten about. Stop the islamists and stop break-up, at almost any cost l.
And Iraq is now a democracy free of Saddam, Bin Laden is dead and Syria is now Assad free and replaced by a non IS rebel group as its leadership.
So the US won that one I think with Bush and Obama
On topic. I do find it remarkable that Starmer managed to win the election, let alone such a large majority when he had negative net favourability ratings. Says a huge amount about the calibre (of lack thereof) of the other candidates.
The US economy already appears on a rocky path with Trump. What is the ratio of US exports to Europe versus US exports to Russia? Maybe a little unfair given the sanctions but whether or not you agree with the boycotting of Israel (I don't) or the cultural boycotting of Russia post 2022, European consumers turning against the US would have a big impact. Trump has tried to bully countries politically by using the threat of tariffs. Well fine. But others will fight back in their own way.
Quite:
It's extraordinarily self harming behaviour.
It's the activity of political simpletons the world over: the assumption that the only outcomes will be the ones that they want and that behaviours won't change.
For me, the big risk to the USA economically is the loss of confidence in it as a stable place to invest and whose currency to hold. My view is that the USD is much stronger than its natural position, propped up by a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that people will always have confidence in USD so it is a good bet to hold. If that is lost, the USA is in some trouble.
OTOH, if Trump's expansionism comes off and the USA swallows up Canada and other territory, perhaps hard-headed investors will buy into that, moral qualms or not.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
No wonder Starmer has to act carefully. We're full of US intelligence and military facilities. De Gaulle wins again.
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?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Didn’t the USA pay for them in the first place? Cutting them off would definitely be a bridge burning manoeuvre, but I guess that’s where we’re at now.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
Duncan Smith, unless I am mistaken never became important enough to declare was* on Sadam. That was Blair's gig.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Jenrick would know this (Leon and the Daily Mail, not so much).
If this is the case why has Sabina Mahmoud responded to Jenrick by disowning the new sentencing guidelines and requesting they be changed as she “doesn’t tolerate two tier justice”?
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
I understand the problem of bias that the guidelines are intented to solve and sympathise with their objective but the chosen means looks like an excessively blunt instrument, and one that could introduce new biases. It's important that everyone has faith in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system. They should think again.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
Apparently not. I did go to do a quick bit of research prior to posting as I was a bit in the dark about it. But it is commanded and operated by the RAF. There are a few US contractors on site, mostly for immediate interpretation and notification to the US military. There are 5 US military personnel present as liaison with the British.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
No wonder Starmer has to act carefully. We're full of US intelligence and military facilities. De Gaulle wins again.
Indeed. Post-war we bet big on the US remaining an essentially benign hegemon, resisting the alternative European security solutions on offer. That bet looks increasingly like a disastrous error.
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?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
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?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
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 .
Not really. OGH is still alive.
That' not how it works, generally:
Emeritus is an honorary title given to someone who has retired from a distinguished position, but can still use their previous title. For example, a retired professor might be called "professor emeritus".
From a PB POV, the term "OGH" is so tied up in the person of Mike Smithson it's not realistic to reassign it to Robert Smithson.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
There's nothing that made America look weaker, and also lose moral.support by killing thousands in the process, than losing wars.
Syria would have been just another to add to Iraq and Vietnam, accelerating the process of decline, even.
Would you say that Russia's far greater loss in Syria made Russia look weaker, and lost it moral support?
No, because Russia made no claims as expansive as the West's in Iraq, to be undermined, and mainly just bombed civilians from the air.
That's utter rubbish AIUI.
I wouldn't agree, there. The U.S. prefaced it's Iraq disaster with a year of bombast about democracy, inevitable victory, and reassertion of its power after 9-11.
The Russians cast Syria, by contrast, as almost nakedly grim realpolitik, that the West had forgotten about. Stop the islamists and stop break-up, at almost any cost l.
And Iraq is now a democracy free of Saddam, Bin Laden is dead and Syria is now Assad free and replaced by a non IS rebel group as its leadership.
So the US won that one I think with Bush and Obama
So the victory against Hamas will be complete when we can all holiday at Trump Resort Gaza?
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
SKS can't afford that sort of brinkspersonship.
SKS: Shut down Fylingdales, plz.🙏🇬🇧
DJT. No. LOL. Do something. 🎤💧
It isn't a case of asking. It is a British facility run by British military personnel. If it really did get to that point, short of an armed attack by the US, there is nothing they can do about it.
Get building that European reusable launch system.
Eutelsat is in talks with the EU to supply additional internet access to Ukraine, it said on Tuesday, amid a two-day surge in its shares on the prospect that OneWeb satellites could replace Elon Musk's Starlink there, - Reuters
🇫🇷🇬🇧 Shares of the Franco-British satellite group have more than tripled in value over the past two days, adding over 1 billion euros ($1.05 billion) to their market capitalisation. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1896979968636207543
Maybe Cummings’ investment in OneWeb will come good after all!
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
SKS can't afford that sort of brinkspersonship.
SKS: Shut down Fylingdales, plz.🙏🇬🇧
DJT. No. LOL. Do something. 🎤💧
Serious question Why not?
Cough Trident Cough.
Yup. We need to get the French on side & start building our own SLICBMs if we want to credibly maintain our nuclear deterrent by the looks of things. Another expense the government could do without...
(It doesn’t look like we can put French missiles in our launch tubes - unless we had the foresight to make them a few inches larger than they needed to be?)
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 .
RCS you are completely right about Russia's anti-fracking activities - they have also funded UK anti-fracking groups, something our centrist Dad anti-Russia brigade are oddly silent about.
(Snip)
Ahem. As perhaps PB's most typical 'centrist dad', I've pointed out a fair few times over the years that Russia would be looking to fund anti-fracking and general environmental groups. The response to which was often: "But they're an oil and gas power! Why would they try to stop oil and gas extraction?"
Which was a rather silly response, as fracking could reduce demand for O&G from Russia, so banning it in the UK could help Russia; and Russia was more interested in fomenting division in the west, and environmental groups do that very well.
So no, this one, at least, was not silent.
(In fact, I went further and said that Russia might well fund both sides of a contentious issue, if that issue would sow discord in an enemy country.)
Comments
I assumed he would be greedy and amoral. A grifter - basically like his first term with an edge of nastiness and possibly some personal scores to be settled
I’ll hold my hands and say I didn’t expect this. It was, of course, a scenario my team wargamed, but it certainly wasn’t the base case
Which is enough for nearly all tasks.
The American military/NRO is a huge buyer of commercial imagery. There are orders of magnitude more commercial imagery satellites than military systems and their costs are vastly lower.
So while VAT isn’t a tariff it can look like one if your paperwork isn’t perfect and the VAT people aren’t rushing to help people out
https://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/jh/earth/earthquakes/lesson4/earthquakes4d.html#:~:text=The New Madrid Fault Zone,remnants of this old event.
young adults (18-25)
sole or primary carers
first custodial or custodial sentence likely to be <2 years
those with addiction issues
those with learning disabilities
those who may have been victims of abuse
That must be nearing 100% of those likely to be given a custodial sentence
I think in time, after the immediate crisis has passed, we will see a Europe that has, yes, gone through a painful rebalancing of its economy and security but is a reliable partner, a safe haven for investment, pluralistic, and maintaining cautious but beneficial relations with China and the other emerging economies.
The USA in the meantime has destroyed its international trustworthiness and its legal system and will be increasingly seen as an unreliable party in international relations. Its decline will continue.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
It was Miliband who was instrumental in promoting badly-designed net-zero policies at a time when Britain had a relatively high level of global influence through international institutions.
The Manchurian candidate is not Trump, but Miliband.
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
China is also the biggest US economic rival now, hence Trump's tariff war with Beijing. No nation recognises Taiwan anyway, Biden would have done sod all had China invaded Taiwan provided it didn't move to Japan and S Korea as well, at least Trump has shifted to not opposing Taiwan independence against Chinese opposition and sent them security aid
Incidentally, do you know how they test for this ethnicity? Do they use a colour chart, or a pencil, or something? Seems important
Emeritus is an honorary title given to someone who has retired from a distinguished position, but can still use their previous title. For example, a retired professor might be called "professor emeritus".
If Miliband had allowed Obama to continue, the result would surely have been another Iraq quagmire, abd even worse damage to the West's reputation, troops, and resources.
Just as we /could/ just use Starlink, but maintaining a small constellation of comms satellites for military use is a prudent insurance policy.
I’m not saying he is a Russian agent, but if he were, he couldn’t have done a better job.
Syria would have been just another to add to Iraq and Vietnam, accelerating the process of decline, even.
The biggest driver in more sats is probably the discovery that they don’t need to cost squillions.
Iridium mass production of sats, followed by various other constellations and now Starlink, has put a stake through the heart of the billion dollar custom satellite thing. Cheap satellites are here….
There are various companies setting up to provide cheaper “buses” - basic satellite frame work, power, solar panels etc. So even small scale or individual sat costs are falling massively.
The big problem for Europe is launch. SpaceX has a marginal *cost* of less than $20 million to get to LEO. Which is why Starlink is affordable.
Ariane 6 *costs* in the region of $100 million and has much lower availability.
The Themis project was supposed to get Europe into the reusable game, but has alternated between being moved forward and people in ArianeSpace and ESA being fired for promoting it.
Europe needs a mega constellation - which means at least an F9 cost structure.
Johnson was a gurning charlatan who one night made the decision to leave Europe in the very presence of an actual and likely Russian agent, Lebedev.
A simple rule (whether ministerial instruction, or legislation - I'm not sure which applies here ?) that the quango may consider ethnic etc disparities in sentencing, but it cannot assume that they arise purely from ethnic (etc) bias - there are almost always possible confounding factors - and it may not propose similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) rules as remedies.
by Conevery Bolton Valencius)
https://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/jh/earth/earthquakes/lesson4/earthquakes4d.html
I know the Tories were crap, but they didn't have all their policies made by the Opposition.
a Russian asset, and where are we with a bunga bunga partying Foreign Secretary?
There's a place for such thinking at times, but I fear it is all he had. But IMV he was also not someone who was swept by the voices he last heard; he had a firm and fairly consistent viewpoint.
So I'd say the problem was one of delivery, not the actual desired aims of the policies.
Judges make sentencing decisions and are required to consider all relevant factors.
The Russians cast Syria, by contrast, as almost nakedly grim realpolitik, that the West had forgotten about. Stop the islamists and stop break-up, at almost any cost l.
William is an exemplar.
It's not exactly controversial
It's extraordinarily self harming behaviour.
Eutelsat is in talks with the EU to supply additional internet access to Ukraine, it said on Tuesday, amid a two-day surge in its shares on the prospect that OneWeb satellites could replace Elon Musk's Starlink there, - Reuters
🇫🇷🇬🇧 Shares of the Franco-British satellite group have more than tripled in value over the past two days, adding over 1 billion euros ($1.05 billion) to their market capitalisation.
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1896979968636207543
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Of course we should be wary of these types of attempts to influence policy for national gain, and come down hard on them. I'm afraid though that Russia is far from alone in these sorts of underhand tactics, especially in the field of energy.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08820-7
Whilst holding great promise for low noise, ease of operation and networking [1], useful photonic quantum computing has been precluded by the need for beyond-state-of-the-art components, manufactured by the millions [2–6]. Here we introduce a manufacturable platform [7] for quantum computing with photons. We benchmark a set of monolithically-integrated silicon photonics-based modules to generate, manipulate, network, and detect heralded photonic qubits, demonstrating dual-rail photonic qubits with 99.98% ± 0.01% state preparation and measurement fidelity, Hong-Ou-Mandel quantum interference between independent photon sources with 99.50% ± 0.25% visibility, two-qubit fusion with 99.22% ± 0.12% fidelity, and a chip-to-chip qubit interconnect with 99.72% ± 0.04% fidelity, conditional on photon detection and not accounting for loss. We preview a selection of next-generation technologies—low-loss silicon nitride waveguides and components to address loss, as well as fabrication-tolerant photon sources, high-efficiency photon-number-resolving detectors, low-loss chip-to-fiber coupling, and barium titanate electro-optic phase shifters for high-performance fast switching...
Seems important because falling in “the right ethnic cohort” gives you a better chance of avoiding jail
So the US won that one I think with Bush and Obama
For me, the big risk to the USA economically is the loss of confidence in it as a stable place to invest and whose currency to hold. My view is that the USD is much stronger than its natural position, propped up by a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that people will always have confidence in USD so it is a good bet to hold. If that is lost, the USA is in some trouble.
OTOH, if Trump's expansionism comes off and the USA swallows up Canada and other territory, perhaps hard-headed investors will buy into that, moral qualms or not.
De Gaulle wins again.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Ireland committed $108 mn in aid to Ukraine, focusing on non-lethal military support
“There is no doubt that this is a very, very serious development,” Irish Deputy PM said, expressing concerns about the US' recent pause in military aid
https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1897318186095157293
SKS: Shut down Fylingdales, plz.🙏🇬🇧
DJT. No. LOL. Do something. 🎤💧
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
(It doesn’t look like we can put French missiles in our launch tubes - unless we had the foresight to make them a few inches larger than they needed to be?)
Which was a rather silly response, as fracking could reduce demand for O&G from Russia, so banning it in the UK could help Russia; and Russia was more interested in fomenting division in the west, and environmental groups do that very well.
So no, this one, at least, was not silent.
(In fact, I went further and said that Russia might well fund both sides of a contentious issue, if that issue would sow discord in an enemy country.)