Excellent header, not only because I agree with it.
Lots to think about. If there is a "Decline and Fall" here it would seem to apply to the USA and not Russia, which has never had anything to decline and fall from.
Thank you. The decline and fall bit applies to the last century of the Republic. Foreigners who could not fight Rome soon worked out that senators were very susceptible to bribery. Once bought, honest senators stayed bought.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.
I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.
The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
Probably not, though.
There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.
That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.
Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.
Commons average age - 49. Lords average age - 71
The Commons are wanting to bump off their elderly relatives, the Lords not so keen to be bumped off?
2 different topics. The HoL needs to be bumped off, a sensible democratically elected second chamber should replace it. It might lose some positive attributes but it's an affront to democracy.
On assisted dying, I thought, I suspect wrongly, that quality of life rather than life at all cost, was an NHS tenet. Hence QALYs as a measurement. There are some lucky enough to have a healthy old age, but others are in pain, discomfort or in a distressing fog of dementia. The lucky ones, (out of misplaced fear?), seems to want to deny those in pain but still cognitive to end their life in dignity and comfort. There'll still be 1000s of confused, unhappy old people with dementia sat in their soiled clothing that they refuse to let their carers change, sleeping their life away in bed or in the TV lounge while their lucky contemporaries ignore them.
I agree with your first point. I would simply abolish the Lords and replace it with better scrutinisation by select committees.
On the second, yes medicine in the UK is already very much aimed at quality of life, not needlessly prolonging suffering. Hence the occasional legal cases of relatives not wanting life support systems switched off. RESPECT forms deliniating the limits of medical intervention are standard practice, as are Do Not Resuscitate decisions, which are agreed with next of kin if the patient lacks capacity.
Going beyond this to actively euthanase is not something that I would support. It opens up the possibility of a lot of coercion by family members and professionals. There is a lot more to be done in terms of improving palliative and End of Life Care that should be done. We should be much more like Dr Red Beard* than Dr Shipman in our approach.
* Red Beard is the best film about medicine that I know, as well as being one of Kurosawa's great masterpieces. Ikuru is as good in its approach to death and dying too.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.
The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
Though the mithering in the west is a step back from that.
We're mostly not being asked to throw ourselves onto the battlefield, just to stump up the cash to produce the machines for the Ukrainians to use.
We've been reluctant to do that for a while. Alan Clark's Diaries note how his Defence Review was the only way John Major was going to be able to afford tax cuts.
One of the (many) things that disgusts me about pro-Russia types, is the argument that Western people are being required to make big sacrifices. All we’re being asked to do is empty our pockets of loose change.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Which is of course one reason why Vance was chosen, along with his - ahem - close association with Trump Jr.
Of course, if his marriage does collapse over one of his affairs that may hurt him in MAGAland (although it doesn't seem to hurt Trump).
MAGAland will celebrate Vance divorcing his 2nd generation Indian and Hindu wife like the prodigal son.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
Yes, Trump is a narrcissist. He always wants to have something new to put him centre stage. Its about ratings in the sense of viewing figures.
Totally agree with the other comments, really great header. It is easy to slip into the mind-set that brutal regimes have an unassailable advantage - great to be reminded that that is not in fact the case. Thank you!
SFAICS there are several critical global debates and actions going on at the same time; at this moment we have no idea how the pieces will settle.
Two central ones are these:
1) Will the Trumpist view settle on and enforce the autocratic 'spheres of influence' view of the big powers. (USA, China, Russia, Western Europe)
And if it does:
2) Will EU/Europe/NATOminusUSA tacitly accept this, or will it declare practical and military opposition both to Russian expansion and to the new Trumpian doctrine.
Ukraine is a boundary dispute within this bigger picture. So far everything about UK/France/Germany etc suggests they are not ready either to accept the new USA doctrine or to oppose it. Which is not a happy place to be.
FWIW I feel this account explains a fair amount, including that there is a conflict within the USA as to the Trumpian doctrine.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
Your call for a “warrior ethos” just seems to be a watered down version of the same fallacy.
The decision would mean both Verstappen and Norris would trail Norris by 24 points, with two rounds remaining and 58 points left on the table..
Not sure about that..
So we would have a title race that unless Norris wins with both Vercrashem and Piastri not scoring would go to the last race.
Hmmmmmm...
Wonder whether technical failures were the only thing on the panel's mind?
Reminds me of the time Schumacher and Irvine were disqualified in Malaysia (in 2000, I think) for their barge boards being incorrectly sized and hurriedly reinstated so that Mika Hakkinen wouldn't be champion with a race left to run.
Edit - it was in 1999, but the right sort of idea.
No, we don't have a title race almost guaranteed to go to the last race. If Norris outscores Verstappen and Piastri next weekend he will be champion. He is 24 points ahead of them assuming the disqualifications are confirmed. If he leaves next weekend 26 or more points ahead of Piastri and Verstappen, he has won.
Before this disqualification, Norris was likely to win the title next weekend. After this disqualification, because Piastri will also be disqualified, he is still likely to win the title next weekend.
A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.
It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.
All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
Yes, it is very difficult to win a war of occupation without genocide. That tends not to be possible in the modern world, even when attempted by Russia, China, Indonesia or Israel.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Agree. Ghastly. But Thermopylae is a fabulous story, which Tom Holland and others have given new life to. History which doesn't include fabulous stories doesn't really do justice to the texture and feel of being alive and aware.
And we do produce new fables. In my lifetime we landed on the moon. I watched it in real time.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
Lol. If they do "F*** up pensions" (and I'm not convinced, they will) they would indeed be cutting spending and thus what @algarkirk is seeking (the end if not the means).
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.
The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
A lesson that has mostly been forgotten in Europe after eight decades of peace - until a war unexpectedly turns up next door.
I think the lesson too many forgot was not to support proto-fascists, which is how Trump became US President.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
You are probably right. But the wisest course for the government would be to do a 1981 budget and more, and explain patiently to the backbenchers that their choice is support, or a dissolution of parliament, in which on current form up to 350 of them are out of a job.
A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.
It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.
All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
Yes, it is very difficult to win a war of occupation without genocide. That tends not to be possible in the modern world, even when attempted by Russia, China, Indonesia or Israel.
I recently had a tour of Sarajevo. The guide had served in ARBiH during the Bosnian war. "We knew that if the Serbs took Sarajevo they would commit genocide" he said. "We fought to the death"
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.
The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
Though the mithering in the west is a step back from that.
We're mostly not being asked to throw ourselves onto the battlefield, just to stump up the cash to produce the machines for the Ukrainians to use.
We've been reluctant to do that for a while. Alan Clark's Diaries note how his Defence Review was the only way John Major was going to be able to afford tax cuts.
One of the (many) things that disgusts me about pro-Russia types, is the argument that Western people are being required to make big sacrifices. All we’re being asked to do is empty our pockets of loose change.
Returns to one of (your?) themes that here and now is about as good as humanity has ever had it. Not perfect, and there are obvious questions about "is it too good to last?"
But rarely has a demos moaned so much about so little.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
Lol. If they do "F*** up pensions" (and I'm not convinced, they will) they would indeed be cutting spending and thus what @algarkirk is seeking (the end if not the means).
Not so LOL when they reduce tax take, you rich commies have no clue and don't care a jot as long as you are loaded and F*** the poor who will end up paying for their uselessness and crazy policies.
Trump sees everything as a real estate deal, hence Witkoff as his negotiator.
In reality this deal written by the Russians and passed off as the work of Trump shows quite a lot of acceptance by Russia that they will not achieve their initial war aims. Yes, there are further territorial demands, and restrictions on Ukranian sovereignty, but a long way short of initial demands. Putin knows that he cannot sustain this war much longer, and cannot end it without at least a pretence of victory.
This is an attempt at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk that preceeds the treaty of Versailles, with Putin as Kaiser Bill wanting one last roll of the dice.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
You are probably right. But the wisest course for the government would be to do a 1981 budget and more, and explain patiently to the backbenchers that their choice is support, or a dissolution of parliament, in which on current form up to 350 of them are out of a job.
I agree but just don't see these weak willed clowns doing it, they are mainly champagne socialists and clueless to boot with no clue of real life. They have been raised on the public teat and have no clue how business works or what it is to do a real job where you do not have a magic money tree.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.
I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.
The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
It’s a private members bill and while the cause is honorable it’s not something to fight over because it’s not Government policy.
Also you can’t criticize the House of Lirds for adding amendments to improve a bill - that’s their job
I’m not criticising them for it, I support what they are doing.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
You are probably right. But the wisest course for the government would be to do a 1981 budget and more, and explain patiently to the backbenchers that their choice is support, or a dissolution of parliament, in which on current form up to 350 of them are out of a job.
I agree but just don't see these weak willed clowns doing it, they are mainly champagne socialists and clueless to boot with no clue of real life. They have been raised on the public teat and have no clue how business works or what it is to do a real job where you do not have a magic money tree.
I guess we should cut down the pension magic money tree
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.
The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
A lesson that has mostly been forgotten in Europe after eight decades of peace - until a war unexpectedly turns up next door.
I think the lesson too many forgot was not to support proto-fascists, which is how Trump became US President.
Something I think about a lot. Given a choice between a good guy and a bad guy, slightly over half of Americans went, I'll take the bad guy.
It's a hard truth to take for people who want to make the world a better place. I don't really know how you tackle it. I don't think it's just better electoral campaigns.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
Lol. If they do "F*** up pensions" (and I'm not convinced, they will) they would indeed be cutting spending and thus what @algarkirk is seeking (the end if not the means).
Not so LOL when they reduce tax take, you rich commies have no clue and don't care a jot as long as you are loaded and F*** the poor who will end up paying for their uselessness and crazy policies.
Brilliant! I have this mental picture of your hilarious posts being delivered by Father Jack Hackett in full flow.
Trump sees everything as a real estate deal, hence Witkoff as his negotiator.
In reality this deal written by the Russians and passed off as the work of Trump shows quite a lot of acceptance by Russia that they will not achieve their initial war aims. Yes, there are further territorial demands, and restrictions on Ukranian sovereignty, but a long way short of initial demands. Putin knows that he cannot sustain this war much longer, and cannot end it without at least a pretence of victory.
This is an attempt at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk that preceeds the treaty of Versailles, with Putin as Kaiser Bill wanting one last roll of the dice.
Great header Sean, lots to think about.
Perhaps the most depressing conclusion is that the Trump cabal have neither the wit, willingness or subtlety to construct a deal therefore that empty space lets whatever wily if depraved Muscovites come up with flood in. As other posters have said it’s time for Europe to flood the void with their own cunning plan.
Trump’s endless claims to be a great deal maker is yet more smoke and mirrors. A bully and liar convincing the naive that they should do business with him and persuading the poor saps that he’ll honour the deal and they’ll receive their agreed pay out is not Metternichian(sp?).
"Trump hates losing and loves winners. He has to somehow rewrite history. The last sentence of this chapter can't be: Trump endorsed Cuomo, who then lost disastrously. So, he inserts himself and makes the last sentence: Trump became unlikely buddies with Mamdani."
A former guest who knows him, once told me that Trump sees politics as a reality show. Whatever else happens, by Friday every week, he has to "win the episode", ensure he's the principal character, make the last shot.
Once you tune into that, everything begins to make a twisted sort of sense.
To pick up on some of the history, I've seen it noted the failure of the Spring Offensive by the Germans against the allies in 1918 was in part due to the Germans occupying French villages and unovering food and drink, the like and quality of which they had not experienced (the country was close to revolution and famine in 1918). Gorging themselves on the French bounty slowed the advance and allowed the French and British to regroup and ultimately, with the Americans, their superiority enabled them to reverse the advance.
The Prussian state was probably the most militarised in Europe but in 1762 came within an inch of total defeat and was no match (initially) for revolutionary France (though the contribution of Blucher at Waterloo is one of those questions always debated). Eventually, it would be the driving force behind the Unification of Germany in 1871 and the concept of "Prussian militarism" was very real until 1945.
I think it comes down to what you are fighting for as much as what you are fighting against and how that is couched in propaganda and the scale of forces arranged against you. Sometimes, however much you may wish it otherwise, the forces arranged against you are so overwhelming as to make either suicide or subjugation your only two options.
Famously, Abraham Lincoln claimed the Americans would "live as free men or die by suicide". We also know many Nazis couldn't contemplate a life without Hitler and took their own lives as did the Japanese thinking the Emperor would be removed by the victorious allies. Even in the post war period, the phrase "better dead than Red" was widely used. The decision to use nuclear weapons, one might argue, would be the ultimate act of national suicide.
There are other examples when the invader is seen as a liberator (look at how some Ukrainians welcomed the invading Wehrmacht in 1941) rather than an oppressor.
There is also the sense, as an aggressor, of you either overcoming an implacable foe to save your own country or freeing an oppressed population from a brutal tyranny. Neither may be true or accurate but that's what is drummed into you as the truth which, as we know, is war's first casualty.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.
The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
Though the mithering in the west is a step back from that.
We're mostly not being asked to throw ourselves onto the battlefield, just to stump up the cash to produce the machines for the Ukrainians to use.
We've been reluctant to do that for a while. Alan Clark's Diaries note how his Defence Review was the only way John Major was going to be able to afford tax cuts.
One of the (many) things that disgusts me about pro-Russia types, is the argument that Western people are being required to make big sacrifices. All we’re being asked to do is empty our pockets of loose change.
Returns to one of (your?) themes that here and now is about as good as humanity has ever had it. Not perfect, and there are obvious questions about "is it too good to last?"
But rarely has a demos moaned so much about so little.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.
I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.
The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
Nonsense, those opposed to the principle about it are the ones objecting and proposing amendments but they'll still object even if the amendments were accepted. Its a wrecking tactic.
The bill should be much more liberalised, like in Canada, but this is better than nothing.
Well today’s plan was to get up early and watch the Grand Prix, then a lazy day with a glass or two of something fizzy watching the cricket.
I guess the fizzy is in the fridge anyway, and it won’t drink itself.
This is just ridiculous nonsense.
F1 developed from the daring-do of Fangio, Nuvolari, Moss, Jimmy Clark and Graham Hill, who put their lives on the line at Zandvoort and Hockenheim in fragile missiles put together by sociopaths like Colin Chapman.
With all the rule changing mid-race it now has the class and integrity of the Kent Walton wrestling on ITV's World of Sport.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
You are probably right. But the wisest course for the government would be to do a 1981 budget and more, and explain patiently to the backbenchers that their choice is support, or a dissolution of parliament, in which on current form up to 350 of them are out of a job.
I agree but just don't see these weak willed clowns doing it, they are mainly champagne socialists and clueless to boot with no clue of real life. They have been raised on the public teat and have no clue how business works or what it is to do a real job where you do not have a magic money tree.
I guess we should cut down the pension magic money tree
Along with the forest for sure , though the pension one is only a small bush and a fraction of what the indolent and lazy get for nothing and zero contributions and pay no income tax, council tax etc. They are well protected.
Trump sees everything as a real estate deal, hence Witkoff as his negotiator.
In reality this deal written by the Russians and passed off as the work of Trump shows quite a lot of acceptance by Russia that they will not achieve their initial war aims. Yes, there are further territorial demands, and restrictions on Ukranian sovereignty, but a long way short of initial demands. Putin knows that he cannot sustain this war much longer, and cannot end it without at least a pretence of victory.
This is an attempt at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk that preceeds the treaty of Versailles, with Putin as Kaiser Bill wanting one last roll of the dice.
Great header Sean, lots to think about.
Perhaps the most depressing conclusion is that the Trump cabal have neither the wit, willingness or subtlety to construct a deal therefore that empty space lets whatever wily if depraved Muscovites come up with flood in. As other posters have said it’s time for Europe to flood the void with their own cunning plan.
Trump’s endless claims to be a great deal maker is yet more smoke and mirrors. A bully and liar convincing the naive that they should do business with him and persuading the poor saps that he’ll honour the deal and they’ll receive their agreed pay out is not Metternichian(sp?).
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
Lol. If they do "F*** up pensions" (and I'm not convinced, they will) they would indeed be cutting spending and thus what @algarkirk is seeking (the end if not the means).
Not so LOL when they reduce tax take, you rich commies have no clue and don't care a jot as long as you are loaded and F*** the poor who will end up paying for their uselessness and crazy policies.
Brilliant! I have this mental picture of your hilarious posts being delivered by Father Jack Hackett in full flow.
Trying to convince yourself of your virtue, I am neither an alcoholic , Irish, or a Catholic priest. I see you as Jared or Wistkoff type, may or may not be 100% accurate.
PS: Good use of leftie champagne socialists tactics though
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.
I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.
The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
Nonsense, those opposed to the principle about it are the ones objecting and proposing amendments but they'll still object even if the amendments were accepted. Its a wrecking tactic.
The bill should be much more liberalised, like in Canada, but this is better than nothing.
The Lords are doing their job admirably. Well done to the HoL
We will end up with a far better bill than this current one.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
I found Max Boot's Invisible Armies, a very interesting read. It considers why some gueriilla movements succeed and others fail (guerillas usually lose, in fact).
"Hearts and Minds" are very important. If people have genuine grievances, redressing them is not a sign of weakness, but rather, it's how you peel off moderates from hardliners. Brutality is also important, but it needs to be well-directed. Indiscriminate murder usually backfires. A shoot to kill policy, OTOH, can be very effective. Boots on the ground are essential, for local supporters have to be reassured they will get protection. Massive search and destroy missions are worse than useless.
I'd add another. Nationalism is a far more potent ideology than either communism or jihadism. It's why the latter will often try to present themselves as the former. Separating off the local nationalists from the others (as the British did in Malaya), almost always ensures victory.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Labour have more pressing issues than the House of Lords - also wtf do you replace them with - we haven't even started discussing whether the current purpose of the House of Lords is correct for the 21st century / an elected chamber.
currently it's role is based on the strengths of it's unelected membership. Change that and I wouldn't trust it to methodically go through, debate and try to improve bills - so what does the second chamber then do...
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.
I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.
The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
Probably not, though.
There is a meanings slice of public opinion for whom any process making assisted dying is simply wrong, any safeguards put in place inadequate. Trying to kill such a bill by strangling it with amendments is a standard political game, that all sorts of people have done.
That it's allowed, and has precedent, doesn't make it right, though.
That doesn’t means these amendments are ill thought out or wrong.
Trying to kill the bill is an accusation by its supporters and well funded lobbyists. The Lords are trying to get the bill right, it’s a highly controversial topic and needs to be right, from the little I’ve seen the safeguards are currently inadequate.
It's also very possible that the somewhat higher average age of the Lords (even after being skewed by the likes of Johnson's friends and family) is concentrating their minds on the topic somewhat more than an unusually youthful Commons.
Commons average age - 49. Lords average age - 71
The Commons are wanting to bump off their elderly relatives, the Lords not so keen to be bumped off?
2 different topics. The HoL needs to be bumped off...
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
The Lords are an important part of the system of checks and balances, many of them without party affiliation, that scrutinise legislation such that we end up with something that’s not going to get torn to shreds in the courts for many years down the road.
Some might argue that the checks and balances are even more important when dealing with a Private Member’s bill on a contentious moral issue, that was not in any manifesto and had not been thought through except by lobby groups pushing for the law to be implemented.
Betfair has odds of 4.5 for Verstappen and 28 for Piastri. They have the same number of points. Quite telling.
4.5 is value for Verstappen (and actually tempting) - I would want a lot more to bet on Piastri...
It's still Norris' to lose. If I had a different setup I might be inclined to bet, but I'm greener on Verstappen already, so I'm just going to leave it as is.
A most engaging read for a Sunday morning, so thank you Sean. And I had no idea where it was going to end.
The biggest concern for the Ukrainians seems to be manpower shortages on the frontline and the backlash to conscription efforts. The Russians and Americans might believe that at some point they will inevitably break the back of the Ukrainian army even though there is little to crow about on the frontline.
It's an interesting take into the possible psychology of people like Trump and Vance that I hadn't personally considered. I've always just assumed that Trump is enamoured with Putin, admires a system where leaders are unaccountable and can easily enrich themselves. Maybe there is something more primitive at work?
A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.
It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.
All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
Yes, it is very difficult to win a war of occupation without genocide. That tends not to be possible in the modern world, even when attempted by Russia, China, Indonesia or Israel.
I recently had a tour of Sarajevo. The guide had served in ARBiH during the Bosnian war. "We knew that if the Serbs took Sarajevo they would commit genocide" he said. "We fought to the death"
I visited Sarajevo over twenty years ago, it was one of the most memorable places I've ever been. A beautiful city but with such a terrible recent past. I was teaching a course and in the coffee breaks people were surprisingly open about everything, there were people from all three communities there and it became clear that some people had relatives who had basically been murdered by the relatives of other people on the course. The pain was barely below the surface. The stories about sniper killings of children were particularly unbearable. People are capable of such depravity when they are willing to dehumanise the other side. When I hear some of the rhetoric around minorities and migrants in this country it is obvious it could happen here.
Betfair has odds of 4.5 for Verstappen and 28 for Piastri. They have the same number of points. Quite telling.
The Piastri of the first half of the season would have you biting their hands off but something has gone seriously wrong with him in the last half dozen races.
I think a lot of drivers really struggle when their team mate (and real opponent) becomes utterly relentless. We have seen that with Verstappen's team mates repeatedly and it happened to various team mates of Hamilton in his pomp. Now, he seems to be suffering the same problems with LeClerc but in reverse. In the second half of the season Norris has managed to eliminate all the little faults that used to hold him back or make him unreliable. When you know even the smallest errors are going to be penalised I think you end up making more of them.
It's hardly a plot. The US met with the Russians, excluding Ukraine (and Europe). The Russians submitted a list of demands via Witkoff, which the administration adopted.
Vance is just its most vocal supporter (see his post on X, where he advocates for it pretty well without compromise, while attacking anyone who points out its glaring flaws).
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
These cowardly clowns will not cut spending , they would not have a plan if they tripped over one. They will F*** up pensions, increase tax and ensure we get further down the toilet. They are useless , expect the worst and then add some more.
Lol. If they do "F*** up pensions" (and I'm not convinced, they will) they would indeed be cutting spending and thus what @algarkirk is seeking (the end if not the means).
Not so LOL when they reduce tax take, you rich commies have no clue and don't care a jot as long as you are loaded and F*** the poor who will end up paying for their uselessness and crazy policies.
Brilliant! I have this mental picture of your hilarious posts being delivered by Father Jack Hackett in full flow.
Trying to convince yourself of your virtue, I am neither an alcoholic , Irish, or a Catholic priest. I see you as Jared or Wistkoff type, may or may not be 100% accurate.
PS: Good use of leftie champagne socialists tactics though
Hah, well your mental picture is as far off as mine.
Anyway, I still like your explosive posts, even though I don't agree with very much in them. Keep them coming!
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
Well today’s plan was to get up early and watch the Grand Prix, then a lazy day with a glass or two of something fizzy watching the cricket.
I guess the fizzy is in the fridge anyway, and it won’t drink itself.
This is just ridiculous nonsense.
F1 developed from the daring-do of Fangio, Nuvolari, Moss, Jimmy Clark and Graham Hill, who put their lives on the line at Zandvoort and Hockenheim in fragile missiles put together by sociopaths like Colin Chapman.
With all the rule changing mid-race it now has the class and integrity of the Kent Walton wrestling on ITV's World of Sport.
You can always watch the racing from Exeter and Windsor, a decent card at Punchestown and for @Sandpit, the first race at Sharjah is at 2pm (local).
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Wasn't the defence of the Commons' slapdash approach to assisted dying - don't worry the Lords will sort it out? It might help the credibility of the lower chamber if they made the effort to pass on properly drafted bills in the first place.
A perhaps contrary example to those quoted by Sean F's thought-provoking piece is that provided by the Mongols who swept across Eurasia as far as the gates of Vienna until caused to withdraw because of the need of their 'top brass' to go home to deal with the effect of the death of (IIRC) Genghis Khan.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
The Lords are an important part of the system of checks and balances, many of them without party affiliation, that scrutinise legislation such that we end up with something that’s not going to get torn to shreds in the courts for many years down the road.
Some might argue that the checks and balances are even more important when dealing with a Private Member’s bill on a contentious moral issue, that was not in any manifesto and had not been thought through except by lobby groups pushing for the law to be implemented.
Your first paragraph is the conventional theory but where is the evidence for it? What was the last bill that was materially improved in the House of Lords? I honestly cannot think of one. The reality is that very few of the members of the House of Lords have the technical skills to improve legislation. I also remember the sad tale by @NickPalmer where he said that even constructive amendments designed to improve the legislation would routinely be voted down on a party whip. That was in the Commons but I suspect the same happens in the Lords often enough.
Sometimes, those in the Lords will have actual real world knowledge of the area which the legislation is purporting to deal with but all too often, even in those cases, you find people being overly influenced by various pressure groups and so called charities.
I am not entirely sure whether a revising Chamber is a good thing or not. The quality of legislation that we pass is certainly not evidence of its effectiveness.
Betfair has odds of 4.5 for Verstappen and 28 for Piastri. They have the same number of points. Quite telling.
4.5 is value for Verstappen (and actually tempting) - I would want a lot more to bet on Piastri...
It's still Norris' to lose. If I had a different setup I might be inclined to bet, but I'm greener on Verstappen already, so I'm just going to leave it as is.
"Norris' to lose" may be technically allowable but "Norris's to lose" seems much better, especially when read out aloud.
Well today’s plan was to get up early and watch the Grand Prix, then a lazy day with a glass or two of something fizzy watching the cricket.
I guess the fizzy is in the fridge anyway, and it won’t drink itself.
This is just ridiculous nonsense.
F1 developed from the daring-do of Fangio, Nuvolari, Moss, Jimmy Clark and Graham Hill, who put their lives on the line at Zandvoort and Hockenheim in fragile missiles put together by sociopaths like Colin Chapman.
With all the rule changing mid-race it now has the class and integrity of the Kent Walton wrestling on ITV's World of Sport.
You can always watch the racing from Exeter and Windsor, a decent card at Punchestown and for @Sandpit, the first race at Sharjah is at 2pm (local).
Ha, I didn’t even know they did horse racing in Sharjah. Cricket I’ve seen there, but not the horses! 2pm local was 3/4 of an hour ago!
I’ve been to Meydan a few times which is very impressive, rather like the new Ascot.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.
I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.
The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
Nonsense, those opposed to the principle about it are the ones objecting and proposing amendments but they'll still object even if the amendments were accepted. Its a wrecking tactic.
The bill should be much more liberalised, like in Canada, but this is better than nothing.
That's what worries people, that the proposal is not the end point. Except those with very strong religious conviction, a good many support the ability to end the suffering of people as they reach the end of their lives. But that is not the same as ending their lives early.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.
The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
Though the mithering in the west is a step back from that.
We're mostly not being asked to throw ourselves onto the battlefield, just to stump up the cash to produce the machines for the Ukrainians to use.
We've been reluctant to do that for a while. Alan Clark's Diaries note how his Defence Review was the only way John Major was going to be able to afford tax cuts.
One of the (many) things that disgusts me about pro-Russia types, is the argument that Western people are being required to make big sacrifices. All we’re being asked to do is empty our pockets of loose change.
Which isn't enough.
In the UK, for example, we still aren't funding Defence properly.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Wasn't the defence of the Commons' slapdash approach to assisted dying - don't worry the Lords will sort it out? It might help the credibility of the lower chamber if they made the effort to pass on properly drafted bills in the first place.
I suspect the HoC has too much to do/gives itself/Govt gives it/ too much to do to scrutinise all legislation properly.
Betfair has odds of 4.5 for Verstappen and 28 for Piastri. They have the same number of points. Quite telling.
4.5 is value for Verstappen (and actually tempting) - I would want a lot more to bet on Piastri...
It's still Norris' to lose. If I had a different setup I might be inclined to bet, but I'm greener on Verstappen already, so I'm just going to leave it as is.
Norris and Piastri both disqualified. Blimey, those odds for Verstappen look good now. What were Maclaren thinking?
It's hardly a plot. The US met with the Russians, excluding Ukraine (and Europe). The Russians submitted a list of demands via Witkoff, which the administration adopted.
Vance is just its most vocal supporter (see his post on X, where he advocates for it pretty well without compromise, while attacking anyone who points out its glaring flaws).
The suggestion is that the Vice President is pushing through a major foreign policy change by removing the State Department from any involvement. Even Marco Rubio thinks it a bad idea. Steve Witkoff is a friend of Donald Trump's but he doesn't have any status. Donald Trump's brain is mush and probably doesn't care two cents about Ukraine. This is happening because JD Vance fancied some freelance foreign policy and is a malevolent shit.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
I found Max Boot's Invisible Armies, a very interesting read. It considers why some gueriilla movements succeed and others fail (guerillas usually lose, in fact).
"Hearts and Minds" are very important. If people have genuine grievances, redressing them is not a sign of weakness, but rather, it's how you peel off moderates from hardliners. Brutality is also important, but it needs to be well-directed. Indiscriminate murder usually backfires. A shoot to kill policy, OTOH, can be very effective. Boots on the ground are essential, for local supporters have to be reassured they will get protection. Massive search and destroy missions are worse than useless.
I'd add another. Nationalism is a far more potent ideology than either communism or jihadism. It's why the latter will often try to present themselves as the former. Separating off the local nationalists from the others (as the British did in Malaya), almost always ensures victory.
Yes, we won in Malaya because we'd already promised them independence.
Had we been fighting to maintain British rule and the privileges of the planters, it'd have been a far harder and longer struggle.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
Fine, but lets not try and pass off obvious wrecking tactics as something worthwhile or well-intentioned?
Good morning everyone. I like Carney's comment on the Peace in Our Time plan:
Each of us do not need to call President Trump and communicate that position," he tells reporters on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Johannesburg.
"The follow-up is being done by our national security advisers. I will be speaking with President Zelenskiy later today, just to close the loop on some aspects of that."
On the plan, he says: "We like point number one, Ukraine as a sovereign nation, that is a good start."
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Wasn't the defence of the Commons' slapdash approach to assisted dying - don't worry the Lords will sort it out? It might help the credibility of the lower chamber if they made the effort to pass on properly drafted bills in the first place.
No - that wasn't the Common's approach, and it wasn't slapdash. The Commons spent over 100 hours scrutinizing and debating the Assisted Dying Bill. This included nearly 90 hours of debate during its committee stage, with the final stages of debate before the vote lasting several hours as well. There are about six or seven in the Lords trying to talk this Bill out of time against the wishes of the Commons and the majority of the population. Scandalous!
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
I found Max Boot's Invisible Armies, a very interesting read. It considers why some gueriilla movements succeed and others fail (guerillas usually lose, in fact).
"Hearts and Minds" are very important. If people have genuine grievances, redressing them is not a sign of weakness, but rather, it's how you peel off moderates from hardliners. Brutality is also important, but it needs to be well-directed. Indiscriminate murder usually backfires. A shoot to kill policy, OTOH, can be very effective. Boots on the ground are essential, for local supporters have to be reassured they will get protection. Massive search and destroy missions are worse than useless.
I'd add another. Nationalism is a far more potent ideology than either communism or jihadism. It's why the latter will often try to present themselves as the former. Separating off the local nationalists from the others (as the British did in Malaya), almost always ensures victory.
Yes, we won in Malaya because we'd already promised them independence.
Had we been fighting to maintain British rule and the privileges of the planters, it'd have been a far harder and longer struggle.
And, IIRC, because many of the insurgents were of Chinese ethnicity, unpopular with the Malays.
Betfair has odds of 4.5 for Verstappen and 28 for Piastri. They have the same number of points. Quite telling.
The Piastri of the first half of the season would have you biting their hands off but something has gone seriously wrong with him in the last half dozen races.
I think a lot of drivers really struggle when their team mate (and real opponent) becomes utterly relentless. We have seen that with Verstappen's team mates repeatedly and it happened to various team mates of Hamilton in his pomp. Now, he seems to be suffering the same problems with LeClerc but in reverse. In the second half of the season Norris has managed to eliminate all the little faults that used to hold him back or make him unreliable. When you know even the smallest errors are going to be penalised I think you end up making more of them.
Quite a lot of it is down to the tyre behaviour. On some tracks they operate in a very narrow range, and there's very little time to find it. And with a wet qualifying, as we saw this weekend, none at all.
Verstappen himself has fallen foul of that in qualifying recently - and when he then started from the pit lane with a completely new setup, was driving a rocket ship.
I suspect there's a fayr slice of luck in all of that (and Red Bull have a small but significant advantage in that they're really setting up the car for only one driver rather than two with different preferences).
I suspect the HoC has too much to do/gives itself/Govt gives it/ too much to do to scrutinise all legislation properly.
Committees scrutinising legislation have nothing else to do, so I don't think this holds up - I've sat on committees that spent hours debating a single clause. Rather, some legislation attracts much more committee attention than others. I'd have thought this particular Bill WOULD attract attention.
I think one clear counter-example to the "falling for the totalitarian" tendency (which imo we currently see amongst Trump fans) is that the UK was far more effective at total societal mobilisation than Germany in WW2. Hitler and co treated women as delicate blossoms for a very long time.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
I suspect the HoC has too much to do/gives itself/Govt gives it/ too much to do to scrutinise all legislation properly.
Committees scrutinising legislation have nothing else to do, so I don't think this holds up - I've sat on committees that spent hours debating a single clause. Rather, some legislation attracts much more committee attention than others. I'd have thought this particular Bill WOULD attract attention.
I stand corrected. Always good to have informed input.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
There is a scenario where Vance takes over as President and the Pope excommunicates him on the grounds of Schism: I.e. The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope when the Pope commands him to stop facilitating the mortal sin of unjust war on Ukraine.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
They’ve moved on from criticising his background, to now criticising his marriage.
The Dem operatives have no idea how badly they come across to everyone outside their very small, always-online, clique. It’s a large part of why Trump and Vance won, but they continue to double-down on the personal rather than the political.
Attack the political impacts of this suggested deal, say that it is unpopular with many allies in Europe and that it places at risk orders for American military equipment, rather than impugning the character of the VP.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
There is a scenario where Vance takes over as President and the Pope excommunicates him on the grounds of Schism: I.e. The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope when the Pope commands him to stop facilitating the mortal sin of unjust war on Ukraine.
Well today’s plan was to get up early and watch the Grand Prix, then a lazy day with a glass or two of something fizzy watching the cricket.
I guess the fizzy is in the fridge anyway, and it won’t drink itself.
This is just ridiculous nonsense.
F1 developed from the daring-do of Fangio, Nuvolari, Moss, Jimmy Clark and Graham Hill, who put their lives on the line at Zandvoort and Hockenheim in fragile missiles put together by sociopaths like Colin Chapman.
With all the rule changing mid-race it now has the class and integrity of the Kent Walton wrestling on ITV's World of Sport.
You can always watch the racing from Exeter and Windsor, a decent card at Punchestown and for @Sandpit, the first race at Sharjah is at 2pm (local).
No chance of disqualification because the rider is wearing a slightly off colour silk.
My thoughts are with TSE after the past 24 hours sporting catastrophes:
Ashes test thrown away, Liverpool loose 3-0 at home, and now Verstappen about to get a further nudge towards the title courtesy of the stewards.
Tough times.
It's fine, plus I don't think I have mentioned it on here but I backed a Vertappen to win this year's title at silly odds a few months ago and I did lay Norris a lot.
I am all green but my biggest winners in descending order are Verstappen, Piastri, and Norris.
Gonna put some money on Argentina battering England today.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Note that Sparta is also a very popular meme with the US right; see for example their veneration/meme-ification of movies like '300'.
Good morning everyone. I like Carney's comment on the Peace in Our Time plan:
Each of us do not need to call President Trump and communicate that position," he tells reporters on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Johannesburg.
"The follow-up is being done by our national security advisers. I will be speaking with President Zelenskiy later today, just to close the loop on some aspects of that."
On the plan, he says: "We like point number one, Ukraine as a sovereign nation, that is a good start."
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Note that Sparta is also a very popular meme with the US right; see for example their veneration/meme-ification of movies like '300'.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
Does Vance want revenge on the 'civilised'?
Vance is an angry man.
Both against the 'elites' who look down on him and against his own background (his marriage and religion appear to be attempts to get away from his upbringing).
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
Fine, but lets not try and pass off obvious wrecking tactics as something worthwhile or well-intentioned?
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
They’ve moved on from criticising his background, to now criticising his marriage.
The Dem operatives have no idea how badly they come across to everyone outside their very small, always-online, clique. It’s a large part of why Trump and Vance won, but they continue to double-down on the personal rather than the political.
Attack the political impacts of this suggested deal, say that it is unpopular with many allies in Europe and that it places at risk orders for American military equipment, rather than impugning the character of the VP.
Remember all that nonsense from the Dems about Vance having an ‘interest’ in Sofa’s.
Betfair has odds of 4.5 for Verstappen and 28 for Piastri. They have the same number of points. Quite telling.
4.5 is value for Verstappen (and actually tempting) - I would want a lot more to bet on Piastri...
It's still Norris' to lose. If I had a different setup I might be inclined to bet, but I'm greener on Verstappen already, so I'm just going to leave it as is.
Norris and Piastri both disqualified. Blimey, those odds for Verstappen look good now. What were Maclaren thinking?
That they wouldn't get tucked up in order for the F1 owners achieve a photo finish in the last races of the season to generate more income.
Does anyone use all season tyres? How do you find them?
The tyre plan for my car has always been to switch to a decent all seasons once the original ones wear out, but it requires a 4 for 4 swap. That would be about now, since one of my tyres is below 3mm - too low for winter imo.
Obviously, being me, I don't go around corners on the limit as a matter of routine. Driving mix is normal provincial.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
To pick up on some of the history, I've seen it noted the failure of the Spring Offensive by the Germans against the allies in 1918 was in part due to the Germans occupying French villages and unovering food and drink, the like and quality of which they had not experienced (the country was close to revolution and famine in 1918). Gorging themselves on the French bounty slowed the advance and allowed the French and British to regroup and ultimately, with the Americans, their superiority enabled them to reverse the advance.
The Prussian state was probably the most militarised in Europe but in 1762 came within an inch of total defeat and was no match (initially) for revolutionary France (though the contribution of Blucher at Waterloo is one of those questions always debated). Eventually, it would be the driving force behind the Unification of Germany in 1871 and the concept of "Prussian militarism" was very real until 1945.
I think it comes down to what you are fighting for as much as what you are fighting against and how that is couched in propaganda and the scale of forces arranged against you. Sometimes, however much you may wish it otherwise, the forces arranged against you are so overwhelming as to make either suicide or subjugation your only two options.
Famously, Abraham Lincoln claimed the Americans would "live as free men or die by suicide". We also know many Nazis couldn't contemplate a life without Hitler and took their own lives as did the Japanese thinking the Emperor would be removed by the victorious allies. Even in the post war period, the phrase "better dead than Red" was widely used. The decision to use nuclear weapons, one might argue, would be the ultimate act of national suicide.
There are other examples when the invader is seen as a liberator (look at how some Ukrainians welcomed the invading Wehrmacht in 1941) rather than an oppressor.
There is also the sense, as an aggressor, of you either overcoming an implacable foe to save your own country or freeing an oppressed population from a brutal tyranny. Neither may be true or accurate but that's what is drummed into you as the truth which, as we know, is war's first casualty.
That's a very good analysis. As someone who twice voted for military action in the Commons and later regretted it, I've come to feel that all analyses showing one side as morally superior should be subject to challenge. WWII is however a good example where the answer is still "yes".
Comments
On the second, yes medicine in the UK is already very much aimed at quality of life, not needlessly prolonging suffering. Hence the occasional legal cases of relatives not wanting life support systems switched off. RESPECT forms deliniating the limits of medical intervention are standard practice, as are Do Not Resuscitate decisions, which are agreed with next of kin if the patient lacks capacity.
Going beyond this to actively euthanase is not something that I would support. It opens up the possibility of a lot of coercion by family members and professionals. There is a lot more to be done in terms of improving palliative and End of Life Care that should be done. We should be much more like Dr Red Beard* than Dr Shipman in our approach.
* Red Beard is the best film about medicine that I know, as well as being one of Kurosawa's great masterpieces. Ikuru is as good in its approach to death and dying too.
https://youtu.be/kJyHtm9paBg?si=cg8rlVj8QiYK1rdm
Two central ones are these:
1) Will the Trumpist view settle on and enforce the autocratic 'spheres of influence' view of the big powers. (USA, China, Russia, Western Europe)
And if it does:
2) Will EU/Europe/NATOminusUSA tacitly accept this, or will it declare practical and military opposition both to Russian expansion and to the new Trumpian doctrine.
Ukraine is a boundary dispute within this bigger picture. So far everything about UK/France/Germany etc suggests they are not ready either to accept the new USA doctrine or to oppose it. Which is not a happy place to be.
FWIW I feel this account explains a fair amount, including that there is a conflict within the USA as to the Trumpian doctrine.
Before this disqualification, Norris was likely to win the title next weekend. After this disqualification, because Piastri will also be disqualified, he is still likely to win the title next weekend.
And we do produce new fables. In my lifetime we landed on the moon. I watched it in real time.
Ashes test thrown away, Liverpool loose 3-0 at home, and now Verstappen about to get a further nudge towards the title courtesy of the stewards.
Tough times.
Many thanks!
But rarely has a demos moaned so much about so little.
In reality this deal written by the Russians and passed off as the work of Trump shows quite a lot of acceptance by Russia that they will not achieve their initial war aims. Yes, there are further territorial demands, and restrictions on Ukranian sovereignty, but a long way short of initial demands. Putin knows that he cannot sustain this war much longer, and cannot end it without at least a pretence of victory.
This is an attempt at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk that preceeds the treaty of Versailles, with Putin as Kaiser Bill wanting one last roll of the dice.
Great header Sean, lots to think about.
I guess the fizzy is in the fridge anyway, and it won’t drink itself.
It's a hard truth to take for people who want to make the world a better place. I don't really know how you tackle it. I don't think it's just better electoral campaigns.
Trump’s endless claims to be a great deal maker is yet more smoke and mirrors. A bully and liar convincing the naive that they should do business with him and persuading the poor saps that he’ll honour the deal and they’ll receive their agreed pay out is not Metternichian(sp?).
https://bsky.app/profile/sturdyalex.bsky.social/post/3m6bwo5xmm22r
"Trump hates losing and loves winners. He has to somehow rewrite history. The last sentence of this chapter can't be: Trump endorsed Cuomo, who then lost disastrously. So, he inserts himself and makes the last sentence: Trump became unlikely buddies with Mamdani."
and
https://bsky.app/profile/sturdyalex.bsky.social/post/3m6bxgwl4gs2r
A former guest who knows him, once told me that Trump sees politics as a reality show. Whatever else happens, by Friday every week, he has to "win the episode", ensure he's the principal character, make the last shot.
Once you tune into that, everything begins to make a twisted sort of sense.
To pick up on some of the history, I've seen it noted the failure of the Spring Offensive by the Germans against the allies in 1918 was in part due to the Germans occupying French villages and unovering food and drink, the like and quality of which they had not experienced (the country was close to revolution and famine in 1918). Gorging themselves on the French bounty slowed the advance and allowed the French and British to regroup and ultimately, with the Americans, their superiority enabled them to reverse the advance.
The Prussian state was probably the most militarised in Europe but in 1762 came within an inch of total defeat and was no match (initially) for revolutionary France (though the contribution of Blucher at Waterloo is one of those questions always debated). Eventually, it would be the driving force behind the Unification of Germany in 1871 and the concept of "Prussian militarism" was very real until 1945.
I think it comes down to what you are fighting for as much as what you are fighting against and how that is couched in propaganda and the scale of forces arranged against you. Sometimes, however much you may wish it otherwise, the forces arranged against you are so overwhelming as to make either suicide or subjugation your only two options.
Famously, Abraham Lincoln claimed the Americans would "live as free men or die by suicide". We also know many Nazis couldn't contemplate a life without Hitler and took their own lives as did the Japanese thinking the Emperor would be removed by the victorious allies. Even in the post war period, the phrase "better dead than Red" was widely used. The decision to use nuclear weapons, one might argue, would be the ultimate act of national suicide.
There are other examples when the invader is seen as a liberator (look at how some Ukrainians welcomed the invading Wehrmacht in 1941) rather than an oppressor.
There is also the sense, as an aggressor, of you either overcoming an implacable foe to save your own country or freeing an oppressed population from a brutal tyranny. Neither may be true or accurate but that's what is drummed into you as the truth which, as we know, is war's first casualty.
The bill should be much more liberalised, like in Canada, but this is better than nothing.
F1 developed from the daring-do of Fangio, Nuvolari, Moss, Jimmy Clark and Graham Hill, who put their lives on the line at Zandvoort and Hockenheim in fragile missiles put together by sociopaths like Colin Chapman.
With all the rule changing mid-race it now has the class and integrity of the Kent Walton wrestling on ITV's World of Sport.
PS: Good use of leftie champagne socialists tactics though
We will end up with a far better bill than this current one.
👍
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
I found Max Boot's Invisible Armies, a very interesting read. It considers why some gueriilla movements succeed and others fail (guerillas usually lose, in fact).
"Hearts and Minds" are very important. If people have genuine grievances, redressing them is not a sign of weakness, but rather, it's how you peel off moderates from hardliners. Brutality is also important, but it needs to be well-directed. Indiscriminate murder usually backfires. A shoot to kill policy, OTOH, can be very effective. Boots on the ground are essential, for local supporters have to be reassured they will get protection. Massive search and destroy missions are worse than useless.
I'd add another. Nationalism is a far more potent ideology than either communism or jihadism. It's why the latter will often try to present themselves as the former. Separating off the local nationalists from the others (as the British did in Malaya), almost always ensures victory.
currently it's role is based on the strengths of it's unelected membership. Change that and I wouldn't trust it to methodically go through, debate and try to improve bills - so what does the second chamber then do...
Some might argue that the checks and balances are even more important when dealing with a Private Member’s bill on a contentious moral issue, that was not in any manifesto and had not been thought through except by lobby groups pushing for the law to be implemented.
The biggest concern for the Ukrainians seems to be manpower shortages on the frontline and the backlash to conscription efforts. The Russians and Americans might believe that at some point they will inevitably break the back of the Ukrainian army even though there is little to crow about on the frontline.
It's an interesting take into the possible psychology of people like Trump and Vance that I hadn't personally considered. I've always just assumed that Trump is enamoured with Putin, admires a system where leaders are unaccountable and can easily enrich themselves. Maybe there is something more primitive at work?
The stories about sniper killings of children were particularly unbearable. People are capable of such depravity when they are willing to dehumanise the other side. When I hear some of the rhetoric around minorities and migrants in this country it is obvious it could happen here.
I think a lot of drivers really struggle when their team mate (and real opponent) becomes utterly relentless. We have seen that with Verstappen's team mates repeatedly and it happened to various team mates of Hamilton in his pomp. Now, he seems to be suffering the same problems with LeClerc but in reverse. In the second half of the season Norris has managed to eliminate all the little faults that used to hold him back or make him unreliable. When you know even the smallest errors are going to be penalised I think you end up making more of them.
The US met with the Russians, excluding Ukraine (and Europe).
The Russians submitted a list of demands via Witkoff, which the administration adopted.
Vance is just its most vocal supporter (see his post on X, where he advocates for it pretty well without compromise, while attacking anyone who points out its glaring flaws).
Thanks Sean, I love the history lesson, and agree with the conclusion. More please.
Anyway, I still like your explosive posts, even though I don't agree with very much in them. Keep them coming!
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
A perhaps contrary example to those quoted by Sean F's thought-provoking piece is that provided by the Mongols who swept across Eurasia as far as the gates of Vienna until caused to withdraw because of the need of their 'top brass' to go home to deal with the effect of the death of (IIRC) Genghis Khan.
If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
Sometimes, those in the Lords will have actual real world knowledge of the area which the legislation is purporting to deal with but all too often, even in those cases, you find people being overly influenced by various pressure groups and so called charities.
I am not entirely sure whether a revising Chamber is a good thing or not. The quality of legislation that we pass is certainly not evidence of its effectiveness.
I’ve been to Meydan a few times which is very impressive, rather like the new Ascot.
Thanks Sean.
In the UK, for example, we still aren't funding Defence properly.
Had we been fighting to maintain British rule and the privileges of the planters, it'd have been a far harder and longer struggle.
Each of us do not need to call President Trump and communicate that position," he tells reporters on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Johannesburg.
"The follow-up is being done by our national security advisers. I will be speaking with President Zelenskiy later today, just to close the loop on some aspects of that."
On the plan, he says: "We like point number one, Ukraine as a sovereign nation, that is a good start."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c33mv4y2187t
The Commons spent over 100 hours scrutinizing and debating the Assisted Dying Bill. This included nearly 90 hours of debate during its committee stage, with the final stages of debate before the vote lasting several hours as well.
There are about six or seven in the Lords trying to talk this Bill out of time against the wishes of the Commons and the majority of the population. Scandalous!
On some tracks they operate in a very narrow range, and there's very little time to find it.
And with a wet qualifying, as we saw this weekend, none at all.
Verstappen himself has fallen foul of that in qualifying recently - and when he then started from the pit lane with a completely new setup, was driving a rocket ship.
I suspect there's a fayr slice of luck in all of that (and Red Bull have a small but significant advantage in that they're really setting up the car for only one driver rather than two with different preferences).
I think one clear counter-example to the "falling for the totalitarian" tendency (which imo we currently see amongst Trump fans) is that the UK was far more effective at total societal mobilisation than Germany in WW2. Hitler and co treated women as delicate blossoms for a very long time.
The Dem operatives have no idea how badly they come across to everyone outside their very small, always-online, clique. It’s a large part of why Trump and Vance won, but they continue to double-down on the personal rather than the political.
Attack the political impacts of this suggested deal, say that it is unpopular with many allies in Europe and that it places at risk orders for American military equipment, rather than impugning the character of the VP.
I am all green but my biggest winners in descending order are Verstappen, Piastri, and Norris.
Gonna put some money on Argentina battering England today.
Both against the 'elites' who look down on him and against his own background (his marriage and religion appear to be attempts to get away from his upbringing).
It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
😂
Does anyone use all season tyres? How do you find them?
The tyre plan for my car has always been to switch to a decent all seasons once the original ones wear out, but it requires a 4 for 4 swap. That would be about now, since one of my tyres is below 3mm - too low for winter imo.
Obviously, being me, I don't go around corners on the limit as a matter of routine. Driving mix is normal provincial.