Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
Churchill wanted to go NE rather than NW from the head of Italy, if memory serves. FDR thought he could 'handle' Stalin in the aftermath to make things better. Turns out Stalin was a maniac and FDR was too dead to even attempt to call in perceived favours.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Yes.
It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.
Arguably, we should have been considering raising the voting age.
I'd prefer a maximum voting age if we're going to start restricting the franchise.
At age 87 (men) and 89 (women) average life expectancy is below 5 years, the maximum lifetime of the Parliament being elected.
That might be a basis for restricting the franchise with a maximum age, on the basis that people of that age don't have the expectation of living long enough to suffer the consequences of their vote.
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
If that stays its likely nowhere near enough to win the next election and Labour will likely score more due to swingback and opponents of Reform uniting.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
Perhaps they ought to be annually reviewed, but the decision to proscribe seems sound on the face of it.
Where the law goes too far is by criminalising peaceful protest against proscription. I think that PA's supporters are fools, but people have the right to be fools.
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
If that stays its likely nowhere near enough to win the next election and Labour will likely score more due to swingback and opponents of Reform uniting.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
Nah, bollocks. All the models are broken if we have a real 4 party system with Tories under 20
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
If that stays its likely nowhere near enough to win the next election and Labour will likely score more due to swingback and opponents of Reform uniting.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
We're barely over one year into this Parliament. Given the volatility of British politics since at least 2015, the one thing we can say with some confidence is that there are likely to be swings one way or t'other before GE2029.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
Churchill was never done bumming up Stalin, to the point of going along with the naughty Nazis being responsible for Katyn lie.
In an interview in 1956 Churchill was described as thinking Stalin ‘a great man, above all compared to Kruschev and Bulganin’.
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
If that stays its likely nowhere near enough to win the next election and Labour will likely score more due to swingback and opponents of Reform uniting.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
Nah, bollocks. All the models are broken if we have a real 4 party system with Tories under 20
You misunderstood my point.
I myself made the point that the models are broken earlier, if that happens.
However your claim that if it stays in position until 2028 is a different one. If it stays at around a quarter then we likely won't have a "real 4 party system", the Conservatives will be dead/dying as they already are but Labour will probably be recipients of swingback they don't deserve.
In midterms the opposition needs to be scoring better than they want to get at the election. To be the next government then Reform likely need to be starting to score 40% plus in the midterms then fading back to the mid 30s. Around a quarter won't work.
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
If that stays its likely nowhere near enough to win the next election and Labour will likely score more due to swingback and opponents of Reform uniting.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
Nah, bollocks. All the models are broken if we have a real 4 party system with Tories under 20
You misunderstood my point.
I myself made the point that the models are broken earlier, if that happens.
However your claim that if it stays in position until 2028 is a different one. If it stays at around a quarter then we likely won't have a "real 4 party system", the Conservatives will be dead/dying as they already are but Labour will probably be recipients of swingback they don't deserve.
In midterms the opposition needs to be scoring better than they want to get at the election. To be the next government then Reform likely need to be starting to score 40% plus in the midterms then fading back to the mid 30s. Around a quarter won't work.
No, because if Reform are scoring 25-30 and the Tories are sub-20 they will almost certainly form a pact
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
On reflection, I don't think that Barbarossa and Case Blue could ever have succeeded, even without the Soviets receiving British aid (which was not significant until well into 1942, in any case). But, that's being wise after the event. We can say now that the Axis were running on empty, by August 1942, but that's not how it was seen at the time. Well into 1943, it was still reasonable to think that the USSR might sue for a separate peace, as Russia had in WWI.
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
If that stays its likely nowhere near enough to win the next election and Labour will likely score more due to swingback and opponents of Reform uniting.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
Nah, bollocks. All the models are broken if we have a real 4 party system with Tories under 20
You misunderstood my point.
I myself made the point that the models are broken earlier, if that happens.
However your claim that if it stays in position until 2028 is a different one. If it stays at around a quarter then we likely won't have a "real 4 party system", the Conservatives will be dead/dying as they already are but Labour will probably be recipients of swingback they don't deserve.
In midterms the opposition needs to be scoring better than they want to get at the election. To be the next government then Reform likely need to be starting to score 40% plus in the midterms then fading back to the mid 30s. Around a quarter won't work.
Mid term is still a year off, though. I could see Reform having another boost, after next year's local elections.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Yes.
It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.
Arguably, we should have been considering raising the voting age.
I'd prefer a maximum voting age if we're going to start restricting the franchise.
At age 87 (men) and 89 (women) average life expectancy is below 5 years, the maximum lifetime of the Parliament being elected.
That might be a basis for restricting the franchise with a maximum age, on the basis that people of that age don't have the expectation of living long enough to suffer the consequences of their vote.
On the contrary; it's likely their last chance to do so.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
I'm fine with the blur. I'm fine with 16 year olds being able to vote but not get into debt. The two things are quite distinct. One is participating in democracy which doesn't really make much difference to the individual. The other is about protecting them from the big bad world.
Where I have an issue, however, is how we treat them in the criminal justice system. If they can vote, they can be named like everyone else.
I'd be happy to reduce the upper age for voting to 80, stop all the elderly preventing scary change and costing us a fortune with the triple lock. Not so sure about 16 year olds voting though, maybe start with local council elections.
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
If that stays its likely nowhere near enough to win the next election and Labour will likely score more due to swingback and opponents of Reform uniting.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
Nah, bollocks. All the models are broken if we have a real 4 party system with Tories under 20
You misunderstood my point.
I myself made the point that the models are broken earlier, if that happens.
However your claim that if it stays in position until 2028 is a different one. If it stays at around a quarter then we likely won't have a "real 4 party system", the Conservatives will be dead/dying as they already are but Labour will probably be recipients of swingback they don't deserve.
In midterms the opposition needs to be scoring better than they want to get at the election. To be the next government then Reform likely need to be starting to score 40% plus in the midterms then fading back to the mid 30s. Around a quarter won't work.
Mid term is still a year off, though. I could see Reform having another boost, after next year's local elections.
So can I.
It staying as it is, as Leon envisaged, rather rules that out though if it happens.
And a pact is not things staying as it is either.
The one thing we can pretty much guarantee though is that things will not stay as they are.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
I don't think there is such a distinct border and it's difficult to impose one. When I was a teenager -- decades ago now -- I could buy tobacco at 16. Couldn't drink alcohol in a pub til 18. Didn't live alone until I went to university. Was still being financially supported by my parents until I left university and got a job at 21. I'm pretty sure if you'd asked me at 16 that I would have denied being a child but looking back I don't know if I was really a fully adult member of society until many years later. As we grow up we gradually become more experienced and hopefully a bit more level headed and aware of consequences; we become more independent (financially and otherwise); there may be milestones along the way, but there is no single bright line boundary between childhood and adulthood. The law has to set arbitrary numbers, but we should recognise that they are a bit arbitrary (as is clearly seen if we look at how different countries end up at different numbers) and that for any individual right or responsibility it may be more convenient or appropriate for the line to be drawn in a different place.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
JJ - I'm interested that your Grandad worked on ships sailing to Russia, because my great uncle flew RAF planes accompanying such ships - but I know little more than that. Presumably your Grandad was sailing to Arctic Ocean ports? Do you know which ones, and at what point in the war?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
On reflection, I don't think that Barbarossa and Case Blue could ever have succeeded, even without the Soviets receiving British aid (which was not significant until well into 1942, in any case). But, that's being wise after the event. We can say now that the Axis were running on empty, by August 1942, but that's not how it was seen at the time. Well into 1943, it was still reasonable to think that the USSR might sue for a separate peace, as Russia had in WWI.
You need to consider that the aims of the Germans and Russians was. For Stalin, it was the survival of the 'Soviet' state, and certainly his own rule. For Hitler it was deeper: territory and the eradication of lesser peoples. Things like the Caucus' oil were secondary strategic objectives.
Could Stalin have sued for peace if (say) Stalingrad had failed? Would Hitler have accepted?
I do wonder how the war would have changed if Hitler had not declared war on the USA and instead thrown Japan under the bus.
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
2029 surely if Reform are way ahead of Labour.
I'm relatively relaxed about a Reform government. I predict they'll fail so spectacularly when confronted with the need to actually govern that they'll be laughed out of office at the next opportunity.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
The problem is those moaning abut the ban on PA are the same people who welcomed the protest exclusion zones around abortion clinics.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Yes.
It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.
Arguably, we should have been considering raising the voting age.
I'd prefer a maximum voting age if we're going to start restricting the franchise.
At age 87 (men) and 89 (women) average life expectancy is below 5 years, the maximum lifetime of the Parliament being elected.
That might be a basis for restricting the franchise with a maximum age, on the basis that people of that age don't have the expectation of living long enough to suffer the consequences of their vote.
The old arguiment is that they would do so on behalf of their progeny etc. And much of the discourse on here and elsewhere on how greedy the old are forgets completely the many who are desperately worried about their children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces, etc. etc.
But now the grandchildren have their own votes ...
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It might not have made any difference. There is something called the 'ratchet mechanism', which is more than just a financial tool.
Had the US and UK not bothered with aid, but instead used said capacity to hit Germany harder in the west, then Germany would've pulled troops from the east in order to defend the west more.....
And so you end up in the same situation in 1945 that you did anyway.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
Perhaps they ought to be annually reviewed, but the decision to proscribe seems sound on the face of it.
Where the law goes too far is by criminalising peaceful protest against proscription. I think that PA's supporters are fools, but people have the right to be fools.
Doesn't this problem flow from proscription though? Because a person out demonstrating against the proscription of 'Organisation' is potentially at risk of being deemed to be showing support for 'Organisation' unless they're holding up a placard saying "I don't support these guys but I'm so concerned about them being proscribed that I had to speak out here today".
Looks to me like Reform now has a solid 25-30% of the vote. That hasn't budged for a while
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
2029 surely if Reform are way ahead of Labour.
I'm relatively relaxed about a Reform government. I predict they'll fail so spectacularly when confronted with the need to actually govern that they'll be laughed out of office at the next opportunity.
Anyway, a long time until then.
Hmm. The problem with this is that if the Tories made a mess, then Lab turn it into a bigger mess and then Reform also add to the mess, then the country is likely to be completely buggered.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
Without question, the war in the East would have been a more prolonged affair, without UK/US aid. US trucks turned Operation Bagration from being a major victory into a total rout. Without them, the Germans would likely still have been fighting in parts of Belarus and Ukraine, at the start of 1945.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
The problem is those moaning abut the ban on PA are the same people who welcomed the protest exclusion zones around abortion clinics.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
JJ - I'm interested that your Grandad worked on ships sailing to Russia, because my great uncle flew RAF planes accompanying such ships - but I know little more than that. Presumably your Grandad was sailing to Arctic Ocean ports? Do you know which ones, and at what point in the war?
No. We know he was in DEMS (Defensive Equipped Merchant Ships), and he once talked of sailing out on a ship in a convoy until it was out of German air threat, then taking a bosun's chair with his gun onto a merchant ship going the other way. Hence he sat sail to America many times, but never arrived there. The ships had gun mounts welded onto them, but there were not enough guns or crew, causing the mid-Atlantic swaps.
He did mention the Russian convoys a couple of times, but I have no idea where he was heading. I do have a picture somewhere of him in his thirties, looking identical to me at that age, on a ship covered in ice. He also talked of having to break ice of the ship because the weight was affecting stability. The Russian convoys would have required air cover, but I've no idea if DEMS operated them.
He also mentioned seeing ships either side of his in convoy being sunk, something that upset him. Because he was a mathematician he got stationed on land, where *allegedly* he was involved with writing instructions for ships' captains for D-Day. He did not go home for weeks beforehand, as he knew many of the details. I have zero evidence of that, but it is family legend. One ship he was on got sunk shortly after he was transferred.
I wish I'd talked to him more about it, but he was reticent. Understandably so.
From the BBC: "Paul Holmes reacting to today's announcement.
Speaking in the Commons, he says the government's position on the voting age was "hopelessly confused".
"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asks."
I can't answer the first, but on the latter, maybe Paul should ask John Major. Afterall, the age of voting was 18 in the 1990s but you had to be 21 to be an MP.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It might not have made any difference. There is something called the 'ratchet mechanism', which is more than just a financial tool.
Had the US and UK not bothered with aid, but instead used said capacity to hit Germany harder in the west, then Germany would've pulled troops from the east in order to defend the west more.....
And so you end up in the same situation in 1945 that you did anyway.
From the BBC: "Paul Holmes reacting to today's announcement.
Speaking in the Commons, he says the government's position on the voting age was "hopelessly confused".
"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asks."
I can't answer the first, but on the latter, maybe Paul should ask John Major. Afterall, the age of voting was 18 in the 1990s but you had to be 21 to be an MP.
I would think alcohol a red herring here; it might be the medical effect on the body, rather than the mental responsibility which is the determining factor.
The last significant extension to the franchise was in 1969 when those aged 18-21 got the vote though there have been other changes since such as giving UK citizens living abroad the vote in the 1980s.
Roy Jenkins said one of the reasons why he thought the Conservatives did so well in the 1970 election (at 46%, a higher vote share than any party has achieved since) was the number of young women who followed their mothers and voted Conservative.
Not sure there is huge empirical evidence for this but just a thought extending the franchise doesn’t always work our as you might think.
Some believe (and this is prompted by the video of Harold Wilson suing The Move posted earlier) that Labour lost because it had abolished pirate radio. More popular is the view it was England crashing out of the 1970 World Cup (Gordon Banks' tummy).
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It might not have made any difference. There is something called the 'ratchet mechanism', which is more than just a financial tool.
Had the US and UK not bothered with aid, but instead used said capacity to hit Germany harder in the west, then Germany would've pulled troops from the east in order to defend the west more.....
And so you end up in the same situation in 1945 that you did anyway.
There’s also the multiplier.
The Allied aid to Russia was carefully constructed to be of things they didn’t have or were short of.
Which is why the % of GDP comparisons used by some historians are wrong.
Sure, reliable, compact, powerful radios for tanks and aircraft were a tiny percentage of Russia GDP. But the allied supplied ones were far better and available in orders of magnitude more than Russian ones. Priceless.
Similarly all the super octane aviation fuel Russia used was imported from the West. Again, a tiny proportion of GDP - but priceless as a military asset. Because the Russians couldn’t make it.
Same with trucks - the Russia army was largely equipped with US trucks. Even things like field rations. Which allowed rapid advances.
So in return for giving a few percent of Russian GDP, the Allies got the benefit of the whole of Russian GDP applied to the war. And massively enhanced by those few percent.
There’s too many unknowns at the moment to say with any certainty where polling is likely to be in a couple of years time.
We could have had a Reform implosion and a (likely Jenrick-led) Tory recovery.
We could find that Labour aren’t the beneficiaries of any “stop Reform” vote. It’s entirely possible parties like the LDs benefit instead.
We could have Magic Grandpa splitting the Labour vote with both parties at 12-18%.
We could have a new Labour leader, if Starmer carries on the way he is.
I don’t think I’ve known such an uncertain period in UK politics before. The closest was the aftermath of the 2017 election and the various shifts that happened in the subsequent parliament, but those all turned out to be relatively ephemeral and we went back to LAB v CON for the GE. Doesn’t feel quite so certain this time.
Where I do feel confident is that right wing populism is going to have a huge role to play in the next GE.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
The problem is those moaning abut the ban on PA are the same people who welcomed the protest exclusion zones around abortion clinics.
That's a silly comparison given no one was calling for SPUC membership to be outlawed.
From the BBC: "Paul Holmes reacting to today's announcement.
Speaking in the Commons, he says the government's position on the voting age was "hopelessly confused".
"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asks."
I can't answer the first, but on the latter, maybe Paul should ask John Major. Afterall, the age of voting was 18 in the 1990s but you had to be 21 to be an MP.
I would think alcohol a red herring here; it might be the medical effect on the body, rather than the mental responsibility which is the determining factor.
Paul Holmes MP is an idiot for pointing to historic anomalies. He should have concentrated on new ones like the Online Safety Bill which has ministers saying 16-year-olds need to be protected from Hawaiian pizza websites.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It might not have made any difference. There is something called the 'ratchet mechanism', which is more than just a financial tool.
Had the US and UK not bothered with aid, but instead used said capacity to hit Germany harder in the west, then Germany would've pulled troops from the east in order to defend the west more.....
And so you end up in the same situation in 1945 that you did anyway.
There’s also the multiplier.
The Allied aid to Russia was carefully constructed to be of things they didn’t have or were short of.
Which is why the % of GDP comparisons used by some historians are wrong.
Sure, reliable, compact, powerful radios for tanks and aircraft were a tiny percentage of Russia GDP. But the allied supplied ones were far better and available in orders of magnitude more than Russian ones. Priceless.
Similarly all the super octane aviation fuel Russia used was imported from the West. Again, a tiny proportion of GDP - but priceless as a military asset. Because the Russians couldn’t make it.
Same with trucks - the Russia army was largely equipped with US trucks. Even things like field rations. Which allowed rapid advances.
So in return for giving a few percent of Russian GDP, the Allies got the benefit of the whole of Russian GDP applied to the war. And massively enhanced by those few percent.
Even when it came to tanks, and guns, where in general, those we supplied were inferior to those the Soviets were producing, that multiplier effect still worked, because they could be deployed on quieter parts of the front, enabling better material to be used where it was more needed.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Yes.
It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.
Arguably, we should have been considering raising the voting age.
I'd prefer a maximum voting age if we're going to start restricting the franchise.
At age 87 (men) and 89 (women) average life expectancy is below 5 years, the maximum lifetime of the Parliament being elected.
That might be a basis for restricting the franchise with a maximum age, on the basis that people of that age don't have the expectation of living long enough to suffer the consequences of their vote.
The old arguiment is that they would do so on behalf of their progeny etc. And much of the discourse on here and elsewhere on how greedy the old are forgets completely the many who are desperately worried about their children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces, etc. etc.
But now the grandchildren have their own votes ...
If older voters were genuinely concerned about their grandchildren we wouldn't have a national debt of the size it is.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
Doing millions of pounds of damage doesn't make it terrorism. It is certainly something extremely serious, and they should get the book chucked at them, hard. This would seem to border on treason to me. But it isn't terrorism. Let's get back to calling things what they are.
Russian economic stats are pretty much unknown and/or unbelievable atm.
It’s fair to say that sanctions have not worked as intended.
They have still hurt, Russian inflation is 25%+, getting parts to operate its oil and gas industries is ever harder, civil aviation barely functions now, and its reserves of foreign currency have been burned through.
Russian economic stats are pretty much unknown and/or unbelievable atm.
It’s fair to say that sanctions have not worked as intended.
They have still hurt, Russian inflation is 25%+, getting parts to operate its oil and gas industries is ever harder, civil aviation barely functions now, and its reserves of foreign currency have been burned through.
If we'd listened to the Russia-apologists like william all along, you'd expect Kyiv to have fallen by now.
Instead Russia is bankrupting itself, burning through its reserves, seeing inflation spike and causing immense population flight all to slowly grind out a few square metres of territory.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
I don't think there is such a distinct border and it's difficult to impose one. When I was a teenager -- decades ago now -- I could buy tobacco at 16. Couldn't drink alcohol in a pub til 18. Didn't live alone until I went to university. Was still being financially supported by my parents until I left university and got a job at 21. I'm pretty sure if you'd asked me at 16 that I would have denied being a child but looking back I don't know if I was really a fully adult member of society until many years later. As we grow up we gradually become more experienced and hopefully a bit more level headed and aware of consequences; we become more independent (financially and otherwise); there may be milestones along the way, but there is no single bright line boundary between childhood and adulthood. The law has to set arbitrary numbers, but we should recognise that they are a bit arbitrary (as is clearly seen if we look at how different countries end up at different numbers) and that for any individual right or responsibility it may be more convenient or appropriate for the line to be drawn in a different place.
Believe it or not I do actually understand this argument, and you are also correct that this is how things end up working in practice IRL. But a lot of the movement is fiddling around the edges - see your "tobacco at 16, alcohol at 18", and they vary up and down over time in a way that's not obviously meaningful. Far better IMHO to pick an single age, as I think the Japanese do. If individuals vary in maturity (as they inevitably will) then this can be replaced with - say - an adulthood certificate, to be issued between 16-21 with the consent of the parents.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
The problem is those moaning abut the ban on PA are the same people who welcomed the protest exclusion zones around abortion clinics.
No, some of us are unhappy with both. Once upon a time there was a Liberal party standing up for freedom of expression in this country - they've gone awol (partly as it's not their supporters protesting around abortion clinics)
Russian economic stats are pretty much unknown and/or unbelievable atm.
It’s fair to say that sanctions have not worked as intended.
I'll say it again William.
The "2nd best army in the world" attacked it's immediate neighbour. Three year and five months into a war, they have not even managed to take its second city, Kharkiv (something Germany managed twice in WWII). Kharkiv is 30 kilometres from the Russian border.
You can shill for Russia all you like; they've screwed themselves harder than TSE's fictional dockside hooker.
If Russia stopped today, it'd take them 10 years to recover, even if they could also eliminate all the corruption in their society immediately.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
JJ - I'm interested that your Grandad worked on ships sailing to Russia, because my great uncle flew RAF planes accompanying such ships - but I know little more than that. Presumably your Grandad was sailing to Arctic Ocean ports? Do you know which ones, and at what point in the war?
No. We know he was in DEMS (Defensive Equipped Merchant Ships), and he once talked of sailing out on a ship in a convoy until it was out of German air threat, then taking a bosun's chair with his gun onto a merchant ship going the other way. Hence he sat sail to America many times, but never arrived there. The ships had gun mounts welded onto them, but there were not enough guns or crew, causing the mid-Atlantic swaps.
He did mention the Russian convoys a couple of times, but I have no idea where he was heading. I do have a picture somewhere of him in his thirties, looking identical to me at that age, on a ship covered in ice. He also talked of having to break ice of the ship because the weight was affecting stability. The Russian convoys would have required air cover, but I've no idea if DEMS operated them.
He also mentioned seeing ships either side of his in convoy being sunk, something that upset him. Because he was a mathematician he got stationed on land, where *allegedly* he was involved with writing instructions for ships' captains for D-Day. He did not go home for weeks beforehand, as he knew many of the details. I have zero evidence of that, but it is family legend. One ship he was on got sunk shortly after he was transferred.
I wish I'd talked to him more about it, but he was reticent. Understandably so.
Murmansk would presumably have been the Russian destination ? It was the go to port for European supplies to Russia, since WWI.
Russian economic stats are pretty much unknown and/or unbelievable atm.
It’s fair to say that sanctions have not worked as intended.
They have still hurt, Russian inflation is 25%+, getting parts to operate its oil and gas industries is ever harder, civil aviation barely functions now, and its reserves of foreign currency have been burned through.
If we'd listened to the Russia-apologists like william all along, you'd expect Kyiv to have fallen by now.
Instead Russia is bankrupting itself, burning through its reserves, seeing inflation spike and causing immense population flight all to slowly grind out a few square metres of territory.
Nominal GDP per head in Russia $15,000 and GDP by PPP per head is claimed to be $49,000. That latter figure is unbelievable, as is the gap between the two. It's similar to claims in the early 1980's that East Germany was almost as well off as the West.
If Russian inflation is much higher than official statistics claim (and few dispute that), then real GDP per head is going to be a lot lower.
From the BBC: "Paul Holmes reacting to today's announcement.
Speaking in the Commons, he says the government's position on the voting age was "hopelessly confused".
"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asks."
I can't answer the first, but on the latter, maybe Paul should ask John Major. Afterall, the age of voting was 18 in the 1990s but you had to be 21 to be an MP.
We should standardise all these things at a single age. Drinking, smoking, marrying without parental permission, fighting in the front lines, voting and buying lotttery tickets. I would add all other social and legal contracts - Jury service and signing binding legal contracts as well as being considered an adult for all legal purposes. None of the specific legal protections for minors if you are old enough to vote.
If you want all these to be set at 16 then that is a valid argument. But to say that someone is an adult for some purposes but not others is idiotic.
And of course for Labour the main driver is the fact they think young people are more likely to vote for them.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
The problem is those moaning abut the ban on PA are the same people who welcomed the protest exclusion zones around abortion clinics.
Is that a problem? Protesting at abortion clinics could be considered terrorism if you squint enough (if preventing access for those in clinical need - though that's maybe done in NHS instead?)
I'd not support such an interpretation, to be clear. But neither do I think PA are a terrorist group, even though I don't support them and would happily see those involved in the protests in jail (same with Just Stop Oil).
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
They were engaging in terrorism.
They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.
Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.
Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.
Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?
No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.
"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.
Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?
If so, what's the difference?
Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).
Doing millions of pounds of damage doesn't make it terrorism. It is certainly something extremely serious, and they should get the book chucked at them, hard. This would seem to border on treason to me. But it isn't terrorism. Let's get back to calling things what they are.
Interesting unity across (some) of the political divides on here. I agree absolutely.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
JJ - I'm interested that your Grandad worked on ships sailing to Russia, because my great uncle flew RAF planes accompanying such ships - but I know little more than that. Presumably your Grandad was sailing to Arctic Ocean ports? Do you know which ones, and at what point in the war?
No. We know he was in DEMS (Defensive Equipped Merchant Ships), and he once talked of sailing out on a ship in a convoy until it was out of German air threat, then taking a bosun's chair with his gun onto a merchant ship going the other way. Hence he sat sail to America many times, but never arrived there. The ships had gun mounts welded onto them, but there were not enough guns or crew, causing the mid-Atlantic swaps.
He did mention the Russian convoys a couple of times, but I have no idea where he was heading. I do have a picture somewhere of him in his thirties, looking identical to me at that age, on a ship covered in ice. He also talked of having to break ice of the ship because the weight was affecting stability. The Russian convoys would have required air cover, but I've no idea if DEMS operated them.
He also mentioned seeing ships either side of his in convoy being sunk, something that upset him. Because he was a mathematician he got stationed on land, where *allegedly* he was involved with writing instructions for ships' captains for D-Day. He did not go home for weeks beforehand, as he knew many of the details. I have zero evidence of that, but it is family legend. One ship he was on got sunk shortly after he was transferred.
I wish I'd talked to him more about it, but he was reticent. Understandably so.
Murmansk would presumably have been the Russian destination ? It was the go to port for European supplies to Russia, since WWI.
My great Uncle was on the merchant ships to Murmansk. It was not nice.
On the subject of Allied support for Russia and whether they could have won without it. Yes, they probably could (because the Germans, for all the Wehraboos talking them up, were terrible at waging modern mechanised warfare, with dwindling resources, and an enemy who were learning faster than them.)
But it would have taken millions more Russian lives (simply because of their method of warfare) and the British and Americans would have been in Berlin long before they got there.
Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item
Not nearly young enough.
They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.
That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates
I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.
I don't think there is such a distinct border and it's difficult to impose one. When I was a teenager -- decades ago now -- I could buy tobacco at 16. Couldn't drink alcohol in a pub til 18. Didn't live alone until I went to university. Was still being financially supported by my parents until I left university and got a job at 21. I'm pretty sure if you'd asked me at 16 that I would have denied being a child but looking back I don't know if I was really a fully adult member of society until many years later. As we grow up we gradually become more experienced and hopefully a bit more level headed and aware of consequences; we become more independent (financially and otherwise); there may be milestones along the way, but there is no single bright line boundary between childhood and adulthood. The law has to set arbitrary numbers, but we should recognise that they are a bit arbitrary (as is clearly seen if we look at how different countries end up at different numbers) and that for any individual right or responsibility it may be more convenient or appropriate for the line to be drawn in a different place.
Believe it or not I do actually understand this argument, and you are also correct that this is how things end up working in practice IRL. But a lot of the movement is fiddling around the edges - see your "tobacco at 16, alcohol at 18", and they vary up and down over time in a way that's not obviously meaningful. Far better IMHO to pick an single age, as I think the Japanese do. If individuals vary in maturity (as they inevitably will) then this can be replaced with - say - an adulthood certificate, to be issued between 16-21 with the consent of the parents.
I can think of people who wouldn't merit one of those until quite late in life.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
JJ - I'm interested that your Grandad worked on ships sailing to Russia, because my great uncle flew RAF planes accompanying such ships - but I know little more than that. Presumably your Grandad was sailing to Arctic Ocean ports? Do you know which ones, and at what point in the war?
No. We know he was in DEMS (Defensive Equipped Merchant Ships), and he once talked of sailing out on a ship in a convoy until it was out of German air threat, then taking a bosun's chair with his gun onto a merchant ship going the other way. Hence he sat sail to America many times, but never arrived there. The ships had gun mounts welded onto them, but there were not enough guns or crew, causing the mid-Atlantic swaps.
He did mention the Russian convoys a couple of times, but I have no idea where he was heading. I do have a picture somewhere of him in his thirties, looking identical to me at that age, on a ship covered in ice. He also talked of having to break ice of the ship because the weight was affecting stability. The Russian convoys would have required air cover, but I've no idea if DEMS operated them.
He also mentioned seeing ships either side of his in convoy being sunk, something that upset him. Because he was a mathematician he got stationed on land, where *allegedly* he was involved with writing instructions for ships' captains for D-Day. He did not go home for weeks beforehand, as he knew many of the details. I have zero evidence of that, but it is family legend. One ship he was on got sunk shortly after he was transferred.
I wish I'd talked to him more about it, but he was reticent. Understandably so.
Murmansk would presumably have been the Russian destination ? It was the go to port for European supplies to Russia, since WWI.
And Archangel which was further into the White Sea but further from the Finnish border.
Like JJ, my grandfather was on the convoys. He was in the RN and served on the Atlantic, Malta and Russian convoys at various times but mostly on light cruisers. Shipwrecked 3 times but thankfiully never on the Arctic convoys. He died in 1975 and my Grandmother finally got his Arctic Star in 2012, just before she died. A few years ago I was looking through the IWM website and came across a photo of him I had never known about from his time on HMS Hermione.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Time to declare Russia a terrorist state (which it is) and proscribe Leon.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Time to declare Russia a terrorist state (which it is) and proscribe Leon.
“When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?” - Fred West
The facts have changed because Ukraine is now likely to lose, so - on principle, and after much thought (indeed no little anguish) - I have decided to switch my support to Russia because they are going to win and they have a better anthem
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Time to declare Russia a terrorist state (which it is) and proscribe Leon.
“When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?” - Fred West
The facts have changed because Ukraine is now likely to lose, so - on principle, and after much thought (indeed no little anguish) - I have decided to switch my support to Russia because they are going to win and they have a better anthem
Indeed.
Philosophically I object to these second-hand terrorism banning orders. But just occasionally, in the light of exceptional irritation, one has to make an exception.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
Thought the lawyer made an excellent point. We need a change in the law so that if a police officer is found guilty of falsifying evidence or lying in order to get a conviction, then all of their previous cases are automatically sent for independent review.
So if paying tax is a reason for loweting the voting age then let babies vote.
Let those who are in paid employment vote.
Unemployed and pensioners, sorry, only if you get a job.
It's bound to benefit the loony parties, greens etc. 16 yr olds barely know what day it is and have no idea of politics.
I hope that they're allowed Betfair accounts so that they can bet their pocket money on their political whims too. Of course I'd never take money from children, but fellow voters are surely fair game.
(Other financial outcomes are of course quite likely)
Just a reminder about what local by-elections we have today. There is a Con defence in Denbighshire and a double defence in Dartford. Labour are defending in Basildon and Neath Port Talbot. There are single defences for Lib Dems in Harborough, Green in Liverpool, and PC in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Finally we have another Reform defence - this time in Staffordshire.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
So no change there then.
Suck it up, LOSER
We’ve got a bigger economy in Germany and some of the most easy-to-open windows in the world
Comments
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
If that stays in position until 2028, wow
LDs/Greens/Sultana&MagicGrandpa/even Reform potentially, yes.
Labour and Tories? Not so much.
Might actually accelerate the decline of the Big 2.
That might be a basis for restricting the franchise with a maximum age, on the basis that people of that age don't have the expectation of living long enough to suffer the consequences of their vote.
To be serious potential future election winners they need to be getting up to 40%+ while the Government is unpopular in the midterms, and even that might not be enough, as Ed Miliband can testify.
Where the law goes too far is by criminalising peaceful protest against proscription. I think that PA's supporters are fools, but people have the right to be fools.
In an interview in 1956 Churchill was described as thinking Stalin ‘a great man, above all compared to Kruschev and Bulganin’.
I myself made the point that the models are broken earlier, if that happens.
However your claim that if it stays in position until 2028 is a different one. If it stays at around a quarter then we likely won't have a "real 4 party system", the Conservatives will be dead/dying as they already are but Labour will probably be recipients of swingback they don't deserve.
In midterms the opposition needs to be scoring better than they want to get at the election. To be the next government then Reform likely need to be starting to score 40% plus in the midterms then fading back to the mid 30s. Around a quarter won't work.
Was this the scene you were live posting a few weeks ago?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14913881/Reckless-driver-street-brawl-BMW-crash-London.html
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
Not so sure about 16 year olds voting though, maybe start with local council elections.
It staying as it is, as Leon envisaged, rather rules that out though if it happens.
And a pact is not things staying as it is either.
The one thing we can pretty much guarantee though is that things will not stay as they are.
Could Stalin have sued for peace if (say) Stalingrad had failed? Would Hitler have accepted?
I do wonder how the war would have changed if Hitler had not declared war on the USA and instead thrown Japan under the bus.
I'm relatively relaxed about a Reform government. I predict they'll fail so spectacularly when confronted with the need to actually govern that they'll be laughed out of office at the next opportunity.
Anyway, a long time until then.
Wish me luck, gentlemen
But now the grandchildren have their own votes ...
Had the US and UK not bothered with aid, but instead used said capacity to hit Germany harder in the west, then Germany would've pulled troops from the east in order to defend the west more.....
And so you end up in the same situation in 1945 that you did anyway.
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/wirtschaft-verantwortung/neue-weltbank-daten-belegen-leben-in-deutschland-wird-immer-teurer-li.2340019
At least it's now established that silently praying outside a closed abortion centre isn't a crime.
He did mention the Russian convoys a couple of times, but I have no idea where he was heading. I do have a picture somewhere of him in his thirties, looking identical to me at that age, on a ship covered in ice. He also talked of having to break ice of the ship because the weight was affecting stability. The Russian convoys would have required air cover, but I've no idea if DEMS operated them.
He also mentioned seeing ships either side of his in convoy being sunk, something that upset him. Because he was a mathematician he got stationed on land, where *allegedly* he was involved with writing instructions for ships' captains for D-Day. He did not go home for weeks beforehand, as he knew many of the details. I have zero evidence of that, but it is family legend. One ship he was on got sunk shortly after he was transferred.
I wish I'd talked to him more about it, but he was reticent. Understandably so.
"Paul Holmes reacting to today's announcement.
Speaking in the Commons, he says the government's position on the voting age was "hopelessly confused".
"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asks."
I can't answer the first, but on the latter, maybe Paul should ask John Major. Afterall, the age of voting was 18 in the 1990s but you had to be 21 to be an MP.
The Allied aid to Russia was carefully constructed to be of things they didn’t have or were short of.
Which is why the % of GDP comparisons used by some historians are wrong.
Sure, reliable, compact, powerful radios for tanks and aircraft were a tiny percentage of Russia GDP. But the allied supplied ones were far better and available in orders of magnitude more than Russian ones. Priceless.
Similarly all the super octane aviation fuel Russia used was imported from the West. Again, a tiny proportion of GDP - but priceless as a military asset. Because the Russians couldn’t make it.
Same with trucks - the Russia army was largely equipped with US trucks. Even things like field rations. Which allowed rapid advances.
So in return for giving a few percent of Russian GDP, the Allies got the benefit of the whole of Russian GDP applied to the war. And massively enhanced by those few percent.
We could have had a Reform implosion and a (likely Jenrick-led) Tory recovery.
We could find that Labour aren’t the beneficiaries of any “stop Reform” vote. It’s entirely possible parties like the LDs benefit instead.
We could have Magic Grandpa splitting the Labour vote with both parties at 12-18%.
We could have a new Labour leader, if Starmer carries on the way he is.
I don’t think I’ve known such an uncertain period in UK politics before. The closest was the aftermath of the 2017 election and the various shifts that happened in the subsequent parliament, but those all turned out to be relatively ephemeral and we went back to LAB v CON for the GE. Doesn’t feel quite so certain this time.
Where I do feel confident is that right wing populism is going to have a huge role to play in the next GE.
So we've no real clue therefore.
...
Things are going less well for Merz at home."
Is there a single western leader this ISN'T true for these days ?
They all absolutely love the international aspect of their job, way more than domestic concerns.
Might have been true of Trump & Orban (At times, maybe not now), Meloni perhaps comfortable with both ?
Instead Russia is bankrupting itself, burning through its reserves, seeing inflation spike and causing immense population flight all to slowly grind out a few square metres of territory.
The "2nd best army in the world" attacked it's immediate neighbour. Three year and five months into a war, they have not even managed to take its second city, Kharkiv (something Germany managed twice in WWII). Kharkiv is 30 kilometres from the Russian border.
You can shill for Russia all you like; they've screwed themselves harder than TSE's fictional dockside hooker.
If Russia stopped today, it'd take them 10 years to recover, even if they could also eliminate all the corruption in their society immediately.
Some of the story here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_17
If Russian inflation is much higher than official statistics claim (and few dispute that), then real GDP per head is going to be a lot lower.
If you want all these to be set at 16 then that is a valid argument. But to say that someone is an adult for some purposes but not others is idiotic.
And of course for Labour the main driver is the fact they think young people are more likely to vote for them.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1945800964289556524?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
I'd not support such an interpretation, to be clear. But neither do I think PA are a terrorist group, even though I don't support them and would happily see those involved in the protests in jail (same with Just Stop Oil).
On the subject of Allied support for Russia and whether they could have won without it. Yes, they probably could (because the Germans, for all the Wehraboos talking them up, were terrible at waging modern mechanised warfare, with dwindling resources, and an enemy who were learning faster than them.)
But it would have taken millions more Russian lives (simply because of their method of warfare) and the British and Americans would have been in Berlin long before they got there.
And Archangel which was further into the White Sea but further from the Finnish border.
Like JJ, my grandfather was on the convoys. He was in the RN and served on the Atlantic, Malta and Russian convoys at various times but mostly on light cruisers. Shipwrecked 3 times but thankfiully never on the Arctic convoys. He died in 1975 and my Grandmother finally got his Arctic Star in 2012, just before she died. A few years ago I was looking through the IWM website and came across a photo of him I had never known about from his time on HMS Hermione.
He is the chap in the middle with the glasses.
Teens not really into anyone or against anyone except big poppa Corbo
Ronald De'Souza has been cleared on the same day Errol Campbell had his conviction cleared in a separate case - with both men having been investigated by the same corrupt police officer.
https://news.sky.com/story/errol-campbell-man-jailed-after-investigation-by-corrupt-police-officer-has-name-posthumously-cleared-13397877
What you're talking about is a productive hurt that helps you get fitter. Russia's pain is self-inflicted and has no productive end point.
Its like shooting yourself in the foot in order to get better. No, you would be better off taking it easy than doing that.
Its a winning policy again from the great leader
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Trump’s disapproval rating hits record for second term
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5403189-trumps-disapproval-rating-hits-record-for-second-term/
Unemployed and pensioners, sorry, only if you get a job.
The facts have changed because Ukraine is now likely to lose, so - on principle, and after much thought (indeed no little anguish) - I have decided to switch my support to Russia because they are going to win and they have a better anthem
Philosophically I object to these second-hand terrorism banning orders.
But just occasionally, in the light of exceptional irritation, one has to make an exception.
For me the time when I'm least likely to know what day of the week it is, has been as a wage slave when working so much that the days blend into one.
(Other financial outcomes are of course quite likely)
We’ve got a bigger economy in Germany and some of the most easy-to-open windows in the world
🇷🇺 🇷🇺🇷🇺