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?
Neither Russia nor Ukraine has ramped up conscription to the max so that will probably not be a factor.
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?
If you dislike the principle of the bill (which I don't because Dementia is accurately described as losing someone multiple times) then wrecking tactics make perfect sense...
Reality is the bill wasn't in a fit state to enter Parliament but given the opportunity presented itself I can see why we are in the mess we are in.
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.
And, without parliament oversight become de facto abortion on demand, which very specifically it was not meant to do. It is the very specific example that worries people.
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.
Not necessarily, though it is a poor choice of phrase, IMO.
The idea is probably something slightly more akin to S Korea, where conscription, and the need for strong defence is seen as an unfortunate necessity. Enduring it is perhaps something to be celebrated, but the necessity for its existence is certainly not.
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.
I do not drive but have you instead considered not swapping tyres but swapping wheels (with tyres, obviously) for winter? If it's good enough for Formula 1...
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?
It has had minimal revision from parliament, all the changes came outside. All safeguards are just tickboxes (literally so), and a woman can get an abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
Minimal revisions. The changes have been in practice. The law is now as a matter of course dismissed, with words interpreted to mean something else.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
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?
It has had minimal revision from parliament, all the changes came outside. All safeguards are just tickboxes (literally so), and a woman can get an abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
Um that's not the law as you well know...
Equally it's better for women to have medically supervised abortions than back street or DIY ones (that was the reason behind the original bill).
And the law changed earlier this year because the public (via juries and compliants) decided that prosecuting desperate mentally ill women is not a good idea..
Sorry you may not like it but the UK as a whole doesn't like the idea of women having children they don't want...
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
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?
Note the comments of one of the more noted “realists” here - who would enjoy telling us about how the Russians couldn’t be defeated/stopped because they would transgress all the rules.
To a certain kind of person, that kind transgression is a symbol of the “Alpha Male”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Carlisle of Berriew, Baroness Coffey, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, Lord Moylan, and Lord Sandhurst, all opponents of the Assisted Dying Bill, have together tabled 617 amendments to it. This clearly goes past just being scrutiny of the Bill and is an obvious attempt to undemocratically derail the Bill.
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
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.
I do not drive but have you instead considered not swapping tyres but swapping wheels (with tyres, obviously) for winter? If it's good enough for Formula 1...
When I lived in Switzerland I had full sets of wheels for winter tyres and for “summer” tyres. Everyone pretty much did - garages would take a small fee for storing the unused set if you didn’t have space. It was a normal part of life and I seem to recall it could affect your insurance claim if you crashed in winter whilst not on winter tyres.
Quite a lot of people seemed to have basic wheels on their winter tyres and the smarter ones on summer - I’m presuming this way round as they thought there was more chance of wheel damage in winter from salt or grit amongst other things so save the better ones.
The mistake most people make is thinking that winter tyres are “snow tyres” so they don’t think it’s worth changing in somewhere like the uk but the key benefits are the rubber compound is different so reacts better in cold conditions or warm conditions and the tread in winter tyres is usually designed to disperse water more effectively when there is likely to be more rain.
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
An interesting rapid fire analysis of various aspects around Trump from Anthony Scaramucci on Inside Trump's Head - about 12 minutes worth a listen to the end.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Carlisle of Berriew, Baroness Coffey, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, Lord Moylan, and Lord Sandhurst, all opponents of the Assisted Dying Bill, have together tabled 617 amendments to it. This clearly goes past just being scrutiny of the Bill and is an obvious attempt to undemocratically derail the Bill.
So multiple people have added amendments to the same bit to create a discussion on which amendment is the most appropriate - that's actually rather common...
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
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?
It has had minimal revision from parliament, all the changes came outside. All safeguards are just tickboxes (literally so), and a woman can get an abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
Um that's not the law as you well know...
Equally it's better for women to have medically supervised abortions than back street or DIY ones (that was the reason behind the original bill).
And the law changed earlier this year because the public (via juries and compliants) decided that prosecuting desperate mentally ill women is not a good idea..
Sorry you may not like it but the UK as a whole doesn't like the idea of women having children they don't want...
You dont think we have abortion on demand? Can you point to any recent cases in which two doctors have refused to agree to an abortion? A great many of the abortions carried out routinely in the UK, if the law was enforced would be considered illegal by the words of the 1967 act:
"Continuing the pregnancy posed a risk to the woman's life or injury to her physical or mental health, or that of her existing children."
That was not intended to be a catch all, which it has now become. The law is it is now is in practice is "I want to terminate the pregnancy".
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.
Not necessarily, though it is a poor choice of phrase, IMO.
The idea is probably something slightly more akin to S Korea, where conscription, and the need for strong defence is seen as an unfortunate necessity. Enduring it is perhaps something to be celebrated, but the necessity for its existence is certainly not.
Thanks. The expression 'warrior ethos' was chosen because of its slightly shocking quality. The assumption in my educational background (state, 1960s and early 1970s) was that 'Jingoism' was self evidently wrong. But this is what jingoism said:
We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men' we've got the money too We've fought the bear before, and while we're Britons true The Russians shall not have Constantinople.
Which, mutatis mutandis, says precisely what we and the west need to be saying and are not saying and doing right now.
I'm somewhat reassured that Britain is being represented by Jonathan Powell at the Geneva talks rather than Starmer or Cooper. Definitely a time when we need our best experts on the case.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
I'm somewhat reassured that Britain is being represented by Jonathan Powell at the Geneva talks rather than Starmer or Cooper. Definitely a time when we need our best experts on the case.
A glance at headlines and at Yvette Cooper's X account does ask the question of what the Foreign Secretary is for.
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.
There was some discussion of that doctrine in a recent episode of Origin Story.
The suggestion was that it was a typical Wilsonian kludge to keep social liberals like Jenkins and social conservatives like Callaghan in the tent.
It's easy to see why solving social questions via the Private Members process is politically attractive to governments- they keep their hands clean. But at heart, it's a lottery, and it limits the ability to draft good laws. Perhaps we need something better, though I can't think what.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Carlisle of Berriew, Baroness Coffey, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, Lord Moylan, and Lord Sandhurst, all opponents of the Assisted Dying Bill, have together tabled 617 amendments to it. This clearly goes past just being scrutiny of the Bill and is an obvious attempt to undemocratically derail the Bill.
A bill that was not a part of any manifesto. It has no democratic mandate. Just a well funded lobbying machine and celebrity backing.
Tanni Grey-Thompson has said she is doing her job. Do you not think being non able bodied she probably has more reasons than most to be concerned at a law many consider poorly drafted ?
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
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?
It has had minimal revision from parliament, all the changes came outside. All safeguards are just tickboxes (literally so), and a woman can get an abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
Um that's not the law as you well know...
Equally it's better for women to have medically supervised abortions than back street or DIY ones (that was the reason behind the original bill).
And the law changed earlier this year because the public (via juries and compliants) decided that prosecuting desperate mentally ill women is not a good idea..
Sorry you may not like it but the UK as a whole doesn't like the idea of women having children they don't want...
You dont think we have abortion on demand? Can you point to any recent cases in which two doctors have refused to agree to an abortion? A great many of the abortions carried out routinely in the UK, if the law was enforced would be considered illegal by the words of the 1967 act:
"Continuing the pregnancy posed a risk to the woman's life or injury to her physical or mental health, or that of her existing children."
That was not intended to be a catch all, which it has now become. The law is it is now is in practice is "I want to terminate the pregnancy".
I don't believe current practice remotely reflects the intended meaning of the act. The gulf between the moral concern about AD and the balance of rights and duties (I strongly support AD), and the lack of concern about the rights of unborn life in balancing rights and duties is odd. (I support the intended meaning of the Abortion Act).
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
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?
Note the comments of one of the more noted “realists” here - who would enjoy telling us about how the Russians couldn’t be defeated/stopped because they would transgress all the rules.
To a certain kind of person, that kind transgression is a symbol of the “Alpha Male”
But the reality is almost the opposite. I was watching clips yesterday of men with diabetes and drink problems who had "volunteered" to fight for mother Russia. All of them claimed they were tricked into signing up when they were drunk. All of them were chronically unfit. And they were being sent to the front line with absolutely minimal training or equipment to become fodder. It is tragic what these monsters have done to their own country, let alone Ukraine. @Sean_F makes that point well.
Tanni Grey-Thompson on her proposed amendments. Nothing wrong with what she is saying here. The Lords are doing their job even if it frustrates a few activists and their lobbying campaign.
‘ All my amendments had to be approved as in scope of the bill. I had several which were ruled out of scope. You have to ask how it is possible for so many to be tabled. Because there are gaps’
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
ETA as an aside, while we are condemning Nathan Gill for taking brown envelopes from hostile powers, we should remember a backbench Conservative MP had his own private relationship with the NY Governor and later President, who was an avid reader of Churchill's histories.
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
The destroyer Reuben James was sunk by a U-boat as early as October 1941.
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
The why comes from the agreement Germany Italy and Japan signed to head off America joining in.
It was definitely one of those agreements where the sane thing to have said would have been - sorry Japan, you breeched the agreement we aren't helping. Thankfully Hitler didn't do that otherwise I suspect we would be speaking German.
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
Vance is malevolent. I’m not sure he really actively likes anyone or anything. Certainly he’s pretty withering about the community in which he grew up, far more so than any of his critics (I note some #FRITLF in earlier posts), he’s a Catholic but doesn’t like the Pope, he seems to loathe America’s closest allies and half of his MAGA colleagues. Thankfully the feeling of the voting public seems mutual. Look at his personal vote and you see someone substantially less popular than the generic Republican.
The 28 point plan is simply a list of enemy demands and should be treated as such. It’s a US/Russian proposal, to which there should be an Ukraine/free world counter proposal.
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.
I do not drive but have you instead considered not swapping tyres but swapping wheels (with tyres, obviously) for winter? If it's good enough for Formula 1...
When I lived in Switzerland I had full sets of wheels for winter tyres and for “summer” tyres. Everyone pretty much did - garages would take a small fee for storing the unused set if you didn’t have space. It was a normal part of life and I seem to recall it could affect your insurance claim if you crashed in winter whilst not on winter tyres.
Quite a lot of people seemed to have basic wheels on their winter tyres and the smarter ones on summer - I’m presuming this way round as they thought there was more chance of wheel damage in winter from salt or grit amongst other things so save the better ones.
The mistake most people make is thinking that winter tyres are “snow tyres” so they don’t think it’s worth changing in somewhere like the uk but the key benefits are the rubber compound is different so reacts better in cold conditions or warm conditions and the tread in winter tyres is usually designed to disperse water more effectively when there is likely to be more rain.
I have a full set of winters on steel rims which I swap over (myself, it only takes an hour or so) for a few months.
I mainly started this because of driving around Scottish roads doing winter hills, but despite not being able to do much of that now, I continue to do it because they are much better in the cold and wet, never mind snow.
It is quite funny watching some heavy 4x4 on wide summer tyres getting stuck in a few mm of slush but the downside is that even if you can drive in marginal conditions it doesn't stop everyone else on the road being rubbish.
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.
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
The why comes from the agreement Germany Italy and Japan signed to head off America joining in.
It was definitely one of those agreements where the sane thing to have said would have been - sorry Japan, you breeched the agreement we aren't helping. Thankfully Hitler didn't do that otherwise I suspect we would be speaking German.
More like Churchill’s post war speech would have had slightly different geography. “From Tromso in the North, to Genoa in the South, an iron curtain has descended across our continent”.
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
That's almost certainly part of it. The new US right is notably fond of Russia and Hungary.
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?
Note the comments of one of the more noted “realists” here - who would enjoy telling us about how the Russians couldn’t be defeated/stopped because they would transgress all the rules.
To a certain kind of person, that kind transgression is a symbol of the “Alpha Male”
But the reality is almost the opposite. I was watching clips yesterday of men with diabetes and drink problems who had "volunteered" to fight for mother Russia. All of them claimed they were tricked into signing up when they were drunk. All of them were chronically unfit. And they were being sent to the front line with absolutely minimal training or equipment to become fodder. It is tragic what these monsters have done to their own country, let alone Ukraine. @Sean_F makes that point well.
Yes, indeed.
The idea that being War Crimey actually works is non existent.
Recall the same person snearing at those pointing out that Russian military trucks were using cheap Chinese copies of proper off road tires. Which resulted in the trucks failing…
What matters in modern war is a willingness to fight - yes - but a kind of technical, thinking steadfastness.
Interestingly, H G Wells presaged this in his short story “The Land Ironclads”. On the surface, it is the story of the first tanks, as imagined by Wells. As usual with his works, the social message is the a critical part of the story.
In the Land Ironclads, the opponents are -
“ … nice healthy hunters and stockmen and so on, rowdy-dowdy cowpunchers and xxxxx-whackers”
Vs
“…crowd of devitalised townsmen, and that's the truth of the matter' They're clerks, they're factory hands, they're students, they're civilised men”
The latter group introduce the Land Ironclads and annihilate the enemy.
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
Russians or pro-Russians? I vaguely know some Russians and have no complaints about them.
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?
Note the comments of one of the more noted “realists” here - who would enjoy telling us about how the Russians couldn’t be defeated/stopped because they would transgress all the rules.
To a certain kind of person, that kind transgression is a symbol of the “Alpha Male”
But the reality is almost the opposite. I was watching clips yesterday of men with diabetes and drink problems who had "volunteered" to fight for mother Russia. All of them claimed they were tricked into signing up when they were drunk. All of them were chronically unfit. And they were being sent to the front line with absolutely minimal training or equipment to become fodder. It is tragic what these monsters have done to their own country, let alone Ukraine. @Sean_F makes that point well.
That's always been the case. Contrast the Aryan superman with most lineups of actual Nazis- whether in 1930s Germany or elsewhere since.
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.
There is absolutely zero chance of that happening. The Church has a long memory, specifically the disastrous effect on English Catholics of Pius V's excommunication of Elizabeth I and his purporting to release them from any obedience to her. I've read in more than one place that that 16th century precedent was a reason they didn't excommunicate Hitler (baptised a Catholic) early. There is no way anyone would excommunicate a President Vance.
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
I have a Russian neighbour. She's very nice but rather shy.
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
ETA as an aside, while we are condemning Nathan Gill for taking brown envelopes from hostile powers, we should remember a backbench Conservative MP had his own private relationship with the NY Governor and later President, who was an avid reader of Churchill's histories.
The US position was dictated by domestic politics. Before the war, the following was believed, almost universally in the US -
- WWI was a stupid, futile European quarrel - It was the kind of thing that many had left Europe to avoid. - That America had just about managed to avoid disaster by being late to join in - That thousands had still died. - The cause of joining in was that, because of the U.K. dominance of the oceans, American manufacturers had sold to the Allies. Because they took Pounds and Francs, the American financial system became dependent on Allied victory. “War is a racket” - That the US had made things worse in Europe, by turning it into an Allied victory. Rather than a stalemate.
Which is why laws were passed massively restricting the munitions trade and taking other than dollars or gold as payment.
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.
It was mostly developed by Enzo Ferrari, who had no qualms about sending a series of drivers to their deaths. He famously inquired after the death of one of his drivers in a crash "And the car?" The late 50s era of Mike Hawthorn and Peter Collins from the UK had a supporting cast of Castelloti,Portago and Musso. Their deaths were just a price of R&D. Anyone wanting to understand the constant threat of death might like to watch my wife's excerllent documentary "Ferrari - Race to Immortality"
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
Russians or pro-Russians? I vaguely know some Russians and have no complaints about them.
I’ve worked with Russians, and also my step-mother is Russian.
Like any country, there is a vast range of types.
One I’ve encountered in some Russians is an almost fanatical honesty - an almost anti-social refusal to lie.
Probably a reaction to non-stop lying in Russian officialdom since… forever.
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
I suspect Vance buys into the Freman belief of the header. It takes a remarkable person to visit Auschwitz Dachau and declare we need more fascism.
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.
There is absolutely zero chance of that happening. The Church has a long memory, specifically the disastrous effect on English Catholics of Pius V's excommunication of Elizabeth I and his purporting to release them from any obedience to her. I've read in more than one place that that 16th century precedent was a reason they didn't excommunicate Hitler (baptised a Catholic) early. There is no way anyone would excommunicate a President Vance.
Whoever is managing our simulation is having fun, so who knows.
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?
Note the comments of one of the more noted “realists” here - who would enjoy telling us about how the Russians couldn’t be defeated/stopped because they would transgress all the rules.
To a certain kind of person, that kind transgression is a symbol of the “Alpha Male”
But the reality is almost the opposite. I was watching clips yesterday of men with diabetes and drink problems who had "volunteered" to fight for mother Russia. All of them claimed they were tricked into signing up when they were drunk. All of them were chronically unfit. And they were being sent to the front line with absolutely minimal training or equipment to become fodder. It is tragic what these monsters have done to their own country, let alone Ukraine. @Sean_F makes that point well.
That's always been the case. Contrast the Aryan superman with most lineups of actual Nazis- whether in 1930s Germany or elsewhere since.
The old joke
Tall and blonde like Hitler Fit like Goering Perfect physically, like Goebbels Geniuses like Borman
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!
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.
Should do you no harm, better for winter , bad weather , not quite as good in teh summer but not bad so for what you are doing they sound like a good idea to me.
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
Russians or pro-Russians? I vaguely know some Russians and have no complaints about them.
Russians - I suspect the difference is the ones I dislike are not Westernized but on holiday in Turkey and rich enough to still be able to go on holiday abroad
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).
the man is a balloon with a huge chip on his shoulder, Trump with brains but nastier
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
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.
I do not drive but have you instead considered not swapping tyres but swapping wheels (with tyres, obviously) for winter? If it's good enough for Formula 1...
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
Russians or pro-Russians? I vaguely know some Russians and have no complaints about them.
One I’ve encountered in some Russians is an almost fanatical honesty - an almost anti-social refusal to lie.
Probably a reaction to non-stop lying in Russian officialdom since… forever.
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
How many of those 73% even knew what the bill said ? Do you seriously think all/any had read it ? I don’t believe more than a handful have.
People support the principle. I support the principle. I’d be one of the 75%. But the bill has issues and these need to be addressed and adequate safeguards put in place.
There’s been no debate on the specifics of the bill and what it entails. Just a well funded lobbying group able to get its message out. I’m not surprised at the polling numbers in that respect. It’s presented as a universally good thing with little critical pushback. Of course the numbers will be in its favour. This is too important a change to be a backbench bill.
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
For me it should be up to the individual to make up their own minds, government/churches should not be dictating to people that they need to live in agony for years just because some religous zealots think it is OK.
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
I wouldn't go that far, even if Vance is Roman Catholic 82% of white Protestant evangelicals voted for Trump last year compared to only 63% of white Roman Catholics and in 2020 Biden even won 52% and a majority of the US Roman Catholic vote while Trump still won 76% of white evangelicals. Vance is also from the conservative Pope Benedict supporting, Latin Mass wing of Roman Catholicism rather than the more liberal Pope Leo/Francis wing and Pope Leo has also criticised the Trump and Vance immigrant deportations. Ukraine is also Orthodox of course just as Russia is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
For me it should be up to the individual to make up their own minds, government/churches should not be dictating to people that they need to live in agony for years just because some religous zealots think it is OK.
Of course, and there’s nothing to stop that now.
However coercive behaviour by relatives or others should be resisted. I’ve nothing against the principle.
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
ETA as an aside, while we are condemning Nathan Gill for taking brown envelopes from hostile powers, we should remember a backbench Conservative MP had his own private relationship with the NY Governor and later President, who was an avid reader of Churchill's histories.
The US position was dictated by domestic politics. Before the war, the following was believed, almost universally in the US -
- WWI was a stupid, futile European quarrel - It was the kind of thing that many had left Europe to avoid. - That America had just about managed to avoid disaster by being late to join in - That thousands had still died. - The cause of joining in was that, because of the U.K. dominance of the oceans, American manufacturers had sold to the Allies. Because they took Pounds and Francs, the American financial system became dependent on Allied victory. “War is a racket” - That the US had made things worse in Europe, by turning it into an Allied victory. Rather than a stalemate.
Which is why laws were passed massively restricting the munitions trade and taking other than dollars or gold as payment.
Was there not also the small matter of debts not being repaid to the USA after WW1?
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
For me it should be up to the individual to make up their own minds, government/churches should not be dictating to people that they need to live in agony for years just because some religous zealots think it is OK.
Of course, and there’s nothing to stop that now.
However coercive behaviour by relatives or others should be resisted. I’ve nothing against the principle.
absolutely , there needs to be some safeguards for sure
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
How many of those 73% even knew what the bill said ? Do you seriously think all/any had read it ? I don’t believe more than a handful have.
People support the principle. I support the principle. I’d be one of the 75%. But the bill has issues and these need to be addressed and adequate safeguards put in place.
There’s been no debate on the specifics of the bill and what it entails. Just a well funded lobbying group able to get its message out. I’m not surprised at the polling numbers in that respect. It’s presented as a universally good thing with little critical pushback. Of course the numbers will be in its favour. This is too important a change to be a backbench bill.
The system may not work brilliantly but I don't think there can be a better way of sorting the AD issue than by parliament doing it; it is clear that majorities support the principle. Parliament (with HoC having the final word) is the place to represent us by getting the details right.
Yes, we need better MPs, better government and better Lords. But they are still the best we have.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
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?
It has had minimal revision from parliament, all the changes came outside. All safeguards are just tickboxes (literally so), and a woman can get an abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.
Um that's not the law as you well know...
Equally it's better for women to have medically supervised abortions than back street or DIY ones (that was the reason behind the original bill).
And the law changed earlier this year because the public (via juries and compliants) decided that prosecuting desperate mentally ill women is not a good idea..
Sorry you may not like it but the UK as a whole doesn't like the idea of women having children they don't want...
Doctors can still be prosecuted for abortions after 24 weeks
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
ETA as an aside, while we are condemning Nathan Gill for taking brown envelopes from hostile powers, we should remember a backbench Conservative MP had his own private relationship with the NY Governor and later President, who was an avid reader of Churchill's histories.
The US position was dictated by domestic politics. Before the war, the following was believed, almost universally in the US -
- WWI was a stupid, futile European quarrel - It was the kind of thing that many had left Europe to avoid. - That America had just about managed to avoid disaster by being late to join in - That thousands had still died. - The cause of joining in was that, because of the U.K. dominance of the oceans, American manufacturers had sold to the Allies. Because they took Pounds and Francs, the American financial system became dependent on Allied victory. “War is a racket” - That the US had made things worse in Europe, by turning it into an Allied victory. Rather than a stalemate.
Which is why laws were passed massively restricting the munitions trade and taking other than dollars or gold as payment.
Was there not also the small matter of debts not being repaid to the USA after WW1?
WWI debt was paid by the U.K. - not sure about all the others.
The U.K. proposed a debt write off among the Allied powers - the UK had lent a lot to others.
I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
I wouldn't go that far, even if Vance is Roman Catholic 82% of white Protestant evangelicals voted for Trump last year compared to only 63% of white Roman Catholics and in 2020 Biden even won 52% and a majority of the US Roman Catholic vote while Trump still won 76% of white evangelicals. Vance is also from the conservative Pope Benedict supporting, Latin Mass wing of Roman Catholicism rather than the more liberal Pope Leo/Francis wing and Pope Leo has also criticised the Trump and Vance immigrant deportations. Ukraine is also Orthodox of course just as Russia is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
There is a lot of difference between ordinary voters and the fringe individuals attempting to drive right wing ideology.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
I wouldn't do it myself but hasn't the CPS got better things to do and spend taxpayers money on than appealing a High Court judgement in favour of a man who decided to burn his own copy of the Quran in the street? If they win I hope they at least also apply the same intent to prosecute to those who burn their own copies of Bibles as they do to those who burn their own Qurans
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".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
ETA as an aside, while we are condemning Nathan Gill for taking brown envelopes from hostile powers, we should remember a backbench Conservative MP had his own private relationship with the NY Governor and later President, who was an avid reader of Churchill's histories.
The US position was dictated by domestic politics. Before the war, the following was believed, almost universally in the US -
- WWI was a stupid, futile European quarrel - It was the kind of thing that many had left Europe to avoid. - That America had just about managed to avoid disaster by being late to join in - That thousands had still died. - The cause of joining in was that, because of the U.K. dominance of the oceans, American manufacturers had sold to the Allies. Because they took Pounds and Francs, the American financial system became dependent on Allied victory. “War is a racket” - That the US had made things worse in Europe, by turning it into an Allied victory. Rather than a stalemate.
Which is why laws were passed massively restricting the munitions trade and taking other than dollars or gold as payment.
Was there not also the small matter of debts not being repaid to the USA after WW1?
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
I wouldn't go that far, even if Vance is Roman Catholic 82% of white Protestant evangelicals voted for Trump last year compared to only 63% of white Roman Catholics and in 2020 Biden even won 52% and a majority of the US Roman Catholic vote while Trump still won 76% of white evangelicals. Vance is also from the conservative Pope Benedict supporting, Latin Mass wing of Roman Catholicism rather than the more liberal Pope Leo/Francis wing and Pope Leo has also criticised the Trump and Vance immigrant deportations. Ukraine is also Orthodox of course just as Russia is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
There is a lot of difference between ordinary voters and the fringe individuals attempting to drive right wing ideology.
Vance's description of his conversion to Catholicism:
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
How many of those 73% even knew what the bill said ? Do you seriously think all/any had read it ? I don’t believe more than a handful have.
People support the principle. I support the principle. I’d be one of the 75%. But the bill has issues and these need to be addressed and adequate safeguards put in place.
There’s been no debate on the specifics of the bill and what it entails. Just a well funded lobbying group able to get its message out. I’m not surprised at the polling numbers in that respect. It’s presented as a universally good thing with little critical pushback. Of course the numbers will be in its favour. This is too important a change to be a backbench bill.
You say "Such a key change as this needs a full public debate" and also "How many of those 73% even knew what the bill said ? Do you seriously think all/any had read it ? I don’t believe more than a handful have."
Expecting a majority of the public to read and approve a detailed bill is expecting too much of the public. They expected their representatives in Parliament to do that.
I think you are trying to kick the can down the road because you personally are against the principle of the Bill.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge's decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London."
I wouldn't do it myself but hasn't the CPS got better things to do and spend taxpayers money on than appealing a High Court judgement in favour of a man who decided to burn his own copy of the Quran in the street? If they win I hope they at least also apply the same intent to prosecute to those who burn their own copies of Bibles as they do to those who burn their own Qurans
Don't be silly , Christian's have special privileges
I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
Utter bollox, europe needs to step up and fund the Ukranians to put Russia back in their box. Blow up all their oil production and really apply sanctions with tough punishment for any company flaunting them.
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'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
I wouldn't go that far, even if Vance is Roman Catholic 82% of white Protestant evangelicals voted for Trump last year compared to only 63% of white Roman Catholics and in 2020 Biden even won 52% and a majority of the US Roman Catholic vote while Trump still won 76% of white evangelicals. Vance is also from the conservative Pope Benedict supporting, Latin Mass wing of Roman Catholicism rather than the more liberal Pope Leo/Francis wing and Pope Leo has also criticised the Trump and Vance immigrant deportations. Ukraine is also Orthodox of course just as Russia is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
There is a lot of difference between ordinary voters and the fringe individuals attempting to drive right wing ideology.
Vance's description of his conversion to Catholicism:
What I sense from it is someone trying to show how educated and intellectual he is.
Much of it could fill 'pseuds corner'.
Whatever you think of Vance's views he would be the only one of 2 US Presidents I could consider to be a genuine intellectual since WW2 if he got to the Oval Office, the other being Obama. Clinton and JFK liked to read a bit and hung around with some intellectuals without really being intellectuals themselves and Nixon was clever but not an intellectual and made sure he was not portrayed as such
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?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
How many of those 73% even knew what the bill said ? Do you seriously think all/any had read it ? I don’t believe more than a handful have.
People support the principle. I support the principle. I’d be one of the 75%. But the bill has issues and these need to be addressed and adequate safeguards put in place.
There’s been no debate on the specifics of the bill and what it entails. Just a well funded lobbying group able to get its message out. I’m not surprised at the polling numbers in that respect. It’s presented as a universally good thing with little critical pushback. Of course the numbers will be in its favour. This is too important a change to be a backbench bill.
You say "Such a key change as this needs a full public debate" and also "How many of those 73% even knew what the bill said ? Do you seriously think all/any had read it ? I don’t believe more than a handful have."
Expecting a majority of the public to read and approve a detailed bill is expecting too much of the public. They expected their representatives in Parliament to do that.
I think you are trying to kick the can down the road because you personally are against the principle of the Bill.
I actually said ‘I support the principle’ in the post you quote. I have no strong principle against it and no religious conviction to drive that.
Quite frankly 73% of the public supporting the bill as is, which you cited, is utterly meaningless given you say expecting them to read I is asking too much of them.
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
I’ve known many Russians and most were very nice. From staff in Russian hotels to clients and acquaintances generally normal people. I had an acquaintance who was well known to be one of Putin’s “bankers” who was in a bank to oversea top Russian people’s interests. He was diplomatically accredited and had a licence to carry a gun and would turn up at dinner parties I hosted with the gun and a driver waiting outside - he was a very lovely, funny, convivial guy who, if it wasn’t for his job and his propensity to sit at the table with a shoulder holster, I would have no problems being friends with.
I have however never met a nice Serb, from peers at school to business contacts and on edges of social circles I have found them all to be very hard and cold and frankly unpleasant to be around so I guess it’s the luck of the draw how you meet and who you meet from other countries and “cultures”.
Meanwhile I see that the trailed Labourlist polling story is out, and relates to Starmer’s relative unpopularity with Labour’s membership, matched up against most of the obvious alternative potential candidates for leader. In particular he loses by a clear margin to Burnham or Rayner. While Streeting also squeaks through in the poll, I’d suggest it’s not actually good news for him, as the narrowness of the margin, his highest number of don’t knows and the relative greater popularity of his rivals suggests his only route to the top is through some sort of coronation? DYOR
Very interesting polling on Labour leadership alternatives to Starmer and against Starmer. Has 54% of Labour members backing a new leader to replace Starmer by the next GE. 58% of Labour members back Burnham to be that new leader to just 32% for keeping Starmer, 52% back Rayner to only 33% for Starmer, 44% back Ed Miliband to 40% for Starmer, 33% back Streeting to 31% for Starmer. 48% back Starmer to 30% for Powell though and 50% still back Starmer to just 16% for Mahmood, so we can rule out the Home Secretary as next PM and Labour leader. https://labourlist.org/2025/11/keir-starmer-leadership-contest-streeting-rayner-burnham-miliband/
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.
The same old nonsense: Trump and Vance selling out Ukraine is all the fault of the Dems! Trump and Vance are brilliant people and this evil policy they are enacting doesn't in anyway cast any bad light on them as individuals.
It's bullshit, Sandpit. Trump's and Vance's choices reflect their characters. It is abundantly clear that Ukraine, the US and rest of the world would be in a better place had Harris/Walz won.
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.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
Russians or pro-Russians? I vaguely know some Russians and have no complaints about them.
One I’ve encountered in some Russians is an almost fanatical honesty - an almost anti-social refusal to lie.
Probably a reaction to non-stop lying in Russian officialdom since… forever.
That is rather endearing.
I cant help but think of Alan Partridge sketch (i think it was knowing me knowing you) when relaying his experience of having a drink with a new york jewish comedian, and how he was impressed that the jewish person had paid for the drink.
Interesting header Sean which has seamlessly moved into assisted dying. I wouldn't be insulted though I think it's more the weather.
I came across this which meant nothing to me but it's had 11 million views and only lasts 30 seconds. Anyone know who Mark Meadows is and can he really bring Trump down next March?
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.
There was some discussion of that doctrine in a recent episode of Origin Story.
The suggestion was that it was a typical Wilsonian kludge to keep social liberals like Jenkins and social conservatives like Callaghan in the tent.
It's easy to see why solving social questions via the Private Members process is politically attractive to governments- they keep their hands clean. But at heart, it's a lottery, and it limits the ability to draft good laws. Perhaps we need something better, though I can't think what.
The 1967 Abortion Act, which both my parents worked on, was a compromise: the intent of those seeking abortion law reform was, very much, abortion on demand, but the Act had a series of provisions to placate those in the middle enough to get the vote over the line. It was very much a case of going through each detail, each concession and working out which MPs would now support it. It was a Private Member's Bill, but the Labour government eased its passage, ensuring it had enough parliamentary time.
Comments
Reality is the bill wasn't in a fit state to enter Parliament but given the opportunity presented itself I can see why we are in the mess we are in.
https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-i-spartan-school/
Sparta was a failure, essentially. Which is why it was a small village by Roman times.
Here is Baroness Cass making a perfectly reasonable objection to the current legislation
https://x.com/treesey/status/1991868973202452875
The idea is probably something slightly more akin to S Korea, where conscription, and the need for strong defence is seen as an unfortunate necessity. Enduring it is perhaps something to be celebrated, but the necessity for its existence is certainly not.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yd8g5qn3jo
Equally it's better for women to have medically supervised abortions than back street or DIY ones (that was the reason behind the original bill).
And the law changed earlier this year because the public (via juries and compliants) decided that prosecuting desperate mentally ill women is not a good idea..
Sorry you may not like it but the UK as a whole doesn't like the idea of women having children they don't want...
To a certain kind of person, that kind transgression is a symbol of the “Alpha Male”
Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
Quite a lot of people seemed to have basic wheels on their winter tyres and the smarter ones on summer - I’m presuming this way round as they thought there was more chance of wheel damage in winter from salt or grit amongst other things so save the better ones.
The mistake most people make is thinking that winter tyres are “snow tyres” so they don’t think it’s worth changing in somewhere like the uk but the key benefits are the rubber compound is different so reacts better in cold conditions or warm conditions and the tread in winter tyres is usually designed to disperse water more effectively when there is likely to be more rain.
https://youtu.be/GCXygHaNgSU?t=62
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
"Continuing the pregnancy posed a risk to the woman's life or injury to her physical or mental health, or that of her existing children."
That was not intended to be a catch all, which it has now become. The law is it is now is in practice is "I want to terminate the pregnancy".
We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men' we've got the money too
We've fought the bear before, and while we're Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.
Which, mutatis mutandis, says precisely what we and the west need to be saying and are not saying and doing right now.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
The suggestion was that it was a typical Wilsonian kludge to keep social liberals like Jenkins and social conservatives like Callaghan in the tent.
It's easy to see why solving social questions via the Private Members process is politically attractive to governments- they keep their hands clean. But at heart, it's a lottery, and it limits the ability to draft good laws. Perhaps we need something better, though I can't think what.
Tanni Grey-Thompson has said she is doing her job. Do you not think being non able bodied she probably has more reasons than most to be concerned at a law many consider poorly drafted ?
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments.
They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
‘ All my amendments had to be approved as in scope of the bill. I had several which were ruled out of scope. You have to ask how it is possible for so many to be tabled. Because there are gaps’
https://x.com/tanni_gt/status/1992195550574465400?s=61
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
ETA as an aside, while we are condemning Nathan Gill for taking brown envelopes from hostile powers, we should remember a backbench Conservative MP had his own private relationship with the NY Governor and later President, who was an avid reader of Churchill's histories.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
https://x.com/thelizcarr/status/1991995159857471682?s=61
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)
It was definitely one of those agreements where the sane thing to have said would have been - sorry Japan, you breeched the agreement we aren't helping. Thankfully Hitler didn't do that otherwise I suspect we would be speaking German.
The 28 point plan is simply a list of enemy demands and should be treated as such. It’s a US/Russian proposal, to which there should be an Ukraine/free world counter proposal.
I mainly started this because of driving around Scottish roads doing winter hills, but despite not being able to do much of that now, I continue to do it because they are much better in the cold and wet, never mind snow.
It is quite funny watching some heavy 4x4 on wide summer tyres getting stuck in a few mm of slush but the downside is that even if you can drive in marginal conditions it doesn't stop everyone else on the road being rubbish.
The new US right is notably fond of Russia and Hungary.
The idea that being War Crimey actually works is non existent.
Recall the same person snearing at those pointing out that Russian military trucks were using cheap Chinese copies of proper off road tires. Which resulted in the trucks failing…
What matters in modern war is a willingness to fight - yes - but a kind of technical, thinking steadfastness.
Interestingly, H G Wells presaged this in his short story “The Land Ironclads”. On the surface, it is the story of the first tanks, as imagined by Wells. As usual with his works, the social message is the a critical part of the story.
In the Land Ironclads, the opponents are -
“ … nice healthy hunters and stockmen and so on, rowdy-dowdy cowpunchers and xxxxx-whackers”
Vs
“…crowd of devitalised townsmen, and that's the truth of the matter' They're clerks, they're factory hands, they're students, they're civilised men”
The latter group introduce the Land Ironclads and annihilate the enemy.
Full text at. https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0604041h.html
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
- WWI was a stupid, futile European quarrel
- It was the kind of thing that many had left Europe to avoid.
- That America had just about managed to avoid disaster by being late to join in
- That thousands had still died.
- The cause of joining in was that, because of the U.K. dominance of the oceans, American manufacturers had sold to the Allies. Because they took Pounds and Francs, the American financial system became dependent on Allied victory. “War is a racket”
- That the US had made things worse in Europe, by turning it into an Allied victory. Rather than a stalemate.
Which is why laws were passed massively restricting the munitions trade and taking other than dollars or gold as payment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kZXqvHQZa4
Like any country, there is a vast range of types.
One I’ve encountered in some Russians is an almost fanatical honesty - an almost anti-social refusal to lie.
Probably a reaction to non-stop lying in Russian officialdom since… forever.
@JohnRentoul
·
2h
Half of members, 54%, said that there should be a new Labour leader in place before the next general election
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1992522357161033897
AuschwitzDachau and declare we need more fascism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=382p6aR5TUA
Tall and blonde like Hitler
Fit like Goering
Perfect physically, like Goebbels
Geniuses like Borman
https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
People support the principle. I support the principle. I’d be one of the 75%. But the bill has issues and these need to be addressed and adequate safeguards put in place.
There’s been no debate on the specifics of the bill and what it entails. Just a well funded lobbying group able to get its message out. I’m not surprised at the polling numbers in that respect. It’s presented as a universally good thing with little critical pushback. Of course the numbers will be in its favour. This is too important a change to be a backbench bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
From Millfield school. One "Miles Hart".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2e2yzyzvlo
However coercive behaviour by relatives or others should be resisted. I’ve nothing against the principle.
Yes, we need better MPs, better government and better Lords. But they are still the best we have.
The U.K. proposed a debt write off among the Allied powers - the UK had lent a lot to others.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
The documentary can be downstreamed from iplayer:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002mqln/fake-friend-the-ticket-scammer
https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-i-joined-the-resistance
What I sense from it is someone trying to show how educated and intellectual he is.
Much of it could fill 'pseuds corner'.
Expecting a majority of the public to read and approve a detailed bill is expecting too much of the public.
They expected their representatives in Parliament to do that.
I think you are trying to kick the can down the road because you personally are against the principle of the Bill.
Quite frankly 73% of the public supporting the bill as is, which you cited, is utterly meaningless given you say expecting them to read I is asking too much of them.
I have however never met a nice Serb, from peers at school to business contacts and on edges of social circles I have found them all to be very hard and cold and frankly unpleasant to be around so I guess it’s the luck of the draw how you meet and who you meet from other countries and “cultures”.
https://labourlist.org/2025/11/keir-starmer-leadership-contest-streeting-rayner-burnham-miliband/
It's bullshit, Sandpit. Trump's and Vance's choices reflect their characters. It is abundantly clear that Ukraine, the US and rest of the world would be in a better place had Harris/Walz won.
I came across this which meant nothing to me but it's had 11 million views and only lasts 30 seconds. Anyone know who Mark Meadows is and can he really bring Trump down next March?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eqbdkIH0KT4