I wonder how long it is before they start calling the church woke? Love your neighbour? Turn the other cheek? Welcome immigrants? What is this shit? etc
And it's that anti-empathy, everyone-for-themselves attitude that contributes to today's US foreign policy.
Years ago I pranked some Open Borders types with a tale of American rednecks taking over an area in Wales - restarting mines.
Part of the tall tale was that they were aggressively taking over the local churches and converting them into American style ministries. Complete with hard right politics. (Inspired by the adventures of Captain Hookhand).
The idea - successful - was to see Open Borders advocates suddenly discovering Keep! Them! Out!
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
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Not like you to leave out the Ulster Unionists. And how about the Greens, SNP, SF, etc etc. Edit: that would be genuinely interesting.
Not in the poll figures breakdown, though all the above a tiny fraction of UK 2024 voters anyway from which the party samples were taken
Fair enough - the statistics could still even out a bit anyway when lumping the smaller parties together.
I highly doubt it, UUP and DUP voters would be mostly against and Greens, SNP and SF voters for, so the left right divide remains
SF? Really? really?
- and the percentage differences aren't that great anyway. So you do need to adjust for numbers asked.
Yes, SF now backs assisted dying. Aontu is now the socially conservative Irish republican party and in the Republic FF is more socially conservative than SF
There was an extra edition of Ukraine the Latest yesterday, a session ecorded at the "Ukraine Freedom Summit" in September in London.
Today, in a special bonus episode, we bring you a major panel from the Ukraine Freedom Summit in London, moderated by Dom and featuring a distinguished lineup: Lt General (Ret.) H.R. McMaster (U.S. National Security Adviser to President Trump, 2017–18), Boris Johnson (Former UK Prime Minister), Sergey Vysotsky (Deputy Chairman, Association of Strategic Communications, National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries), and Michael Kofman (Senior Fellow, Russia & Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
Interesting commentary, but also some things I found strange, such as H R McMaster (who was National Security Adviser preceding John Bolton in Trump I), who defended the "warrior ethos" changes of Pete Hegseth to the US Armed forces. I find that strange, bearing in mind that they have dismissed servicemen and women as dishonourably discharged, which will undermine future careers, and removing earned pension rights. I can't fathom anyone supporting that vindictiveness.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Borrowing? For capital investment? To gain a return on the investment? Also known as capitalism?
Naah, it’ll never catch on.
It's the bit in bold that's the issue.
Yeah I know, and it’s wrong for all the obvious reasons. But- and I think it’s important - we need to invest. We can’t cut our way to growth - haven’t we learnt that yet?
Yes, we do.
But I have some doubts that an anti-growth party, which dismisses capital markets as having any importance, is best placed to manage that.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
I wonder how long it is before they start calling the church woke? Love your neighbour? Turn the other cheek? Welcome immigrants? What is this shit? etc
Or maybe, the church will be able to do some of the things it always has done. Forcing us up against people who aren't us, in the way that social media doesn't. And, very occasionally, providing a little bit of quiet space that forces us to contemplate who we really are.
(This is why megachurch and telechurch don't really work, even if they use the same words and better music.)
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
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Not like you to leave out the Ulster Unionists. And how about the Greens, SNP, SF, etc etc. Edit: that would be genuinely interesting.
Not in the poll figures breakdown, though all the above a tiny fraction of UK 2024 voters anyway from which the party samples were taken
Fair enough - the statistics could still even out a bit anyway when lumping the smaller parties together.
I highly doubt it, UUP and DUP voters would be mostly against and Greens, SNP and SF voters for, so the left right divide remains
SF? Really? really?
- and the percentage differences aren't that great anyway. So you do need to adjust for numbers asked.
Yes, SF now backs assisted dying. Aontu is now the socially conservative Irish republican party and in the Republic FF is more socially conservative than SF
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
This is what is always said but it is not really true. For the vast majority troubled by IHT their major asset is their house on which they will have a substantial gain from the time that they bought it. And they have paid no tax on that gain at all. Unless they have bought an annuity the next largest asset is likely to be pension funds. On which they have not only not paid tax but had tax relief. If they own a business then there will be unrealised (and untaxed) capital gains on heritable assets and goodwill. The taxed income people complain about is likely to be a relatively modest contributor to the estate because it is bloody difficult to have meaningful savings out of taxed income in this country, thus maintaining the financial dominance of our ruling class.
If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.
Bottom line is that we have to pay for the society we seem to want somehow.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
I wonder how long it is before they start calling the church woke? Love your neighbour? Turn the other cheek? Welcome immigrants? What is this shit? etc
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
Seems strange but we cannot know anyone's personal circumstances
Health, bereavement, divorce can all have played a part of what looks a sad story
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
This is what is always said but it is not really true. For the vast majority troubled by IHT their major asset is their house on which they will have a substantial gain from the time that they bought it. And they have paid no tax on that gain at all. Unless they have bought an annuity the next largest asset is likely to be pension funds. On which they have not only not paid tax but had tax relief. If they own a business then there will be unrealised (and untaxed) capital gains on heritable assets and goodwill. The taxed income people complain about is likely to be a relatively modest contributor to the estate because it is bloody difficult to have meaningful savings out of taxed income in this country, thus maintaining the financial dominance of our ruling class.
If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.
I agree but rationality doesn't help much with this one. IHT is a hated tax because of the image that for many people it conjures up - the government (dressed in black and cackling) levering up a coffin lid and pickpocketing the fresh corpse of the deceased.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
If @Mexicanpete can elaborate on his hints that Farage adopted identical talking points to Nathan Gill, it would be performing a public service.
I saw a post on twitter with video clips from the European Parliament. Farage seemed to know what he was saying off-pat, Gill seemed unfamiliar with what he was saying as it didn’t flow as well
I wonder how long it is before they start calling the church woke? Love your neighbour? Turn the other cheek? Welcome immigrants? What is this shit? etc
And it's that anti-empathy, everyone-for-themselves attitude that contributes to today's US foreign policy.
Absolutely,and we see echoes of it here. There's quite a lot of questioning happening, including by academics and journalists. This is one whom I suscribe to, who is a retired Pastor called Pat Kahnke. He is view is that "The Republican Party needs 40 years in the wilderness":
Historically, particularly US fundamentalists would have an aversion to "social action", and rejected what they would term the "social gospel".
In the UK such siloing is rare. John Stott, when he published his important book "Issues Facing Christian Today" back in 1984, characterised it as "Christians have recovered their temporarily mislaid social conscience". He was invoking the tradition of Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury.
Re Nathan Gill. Are there countries designated 'enemies' which therefore makes you a traitor if you ask questions or do other things on their behalf?
It seems very unscientific. There must be many grey areas. And does it have to be money or will lavish hospitality do?
You mean hospitality like a party with booze and call girls in an Italian villa? No, I think that is fine.
I suspect Nathan crossed a line when he accepted £5000 to ask the question. Compelling evidence suggests, had he asked almost exactly the same question, and in the same forum, there would be no come back whatsover without evidence of the bung.
Would two tickets to a Six Nations fixture at HQ constitute a bribe? If they were freebies from O2 probably not. If they were tickets issued on the back of Putin's personal Twickenham debenture in order to ask questions in the European Parliament, that might be different.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
The neoconfucian form of authoritarianism, while vile, is at least fairly predictable, and it values order.
The US is still a fellow democracy, and it is far too early to write it off. But unless there's a genuine electoral check on the new right next year, and in 2028, then I might reconsider both those things.
A fully authoritarian US might be every bit as dangerous as China. And less predictable.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet Communist Party could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
There's always a sob story.
Sadly, they can resonate and have political consequences.
If @Mexicanpete can elaborate on his hints that Farage adopted identical talking points to Nathan Gill, it would be performing a public service.
I saw a post on twitter with video clips from the European Parliament. Farage seemed to know what he was saying off-pat, Gill seemed unfamiliar with what he was saying as it didn’t flow as well
At no stage have I mentioned Farage. I almost posted a link to an Instagram account by a guy called Craig who compared a speech by Gill and a speech by another MEP and the language was uncannily similar, but for the lawyers I felt it inappropriate to link here.
@Gardenwalker I don't think you would have to try too hard to find what you are looking for.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
I'm afraid it is.
The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.
I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
I don’t think they want a stable world. I think they want a Chinese led one.
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
I'm afraid it is.
The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.
I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.
Nobody particularly cares about your approbation or disapprobation.
Anyone who can witness the Dmitriev-Witkoff plan and think that the U.S. remains the only choice is simply not thinking straight.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Note that Sparta is also a very popular meme with the US right; see for example their veneration/meme-ification of movies like '300'.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
I don’t think they want a stable world. I think they want a Chinese led one.
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
China seems less ideologically evangelical than the West is/was.
A perhaps contrary example to those quoted by Sean F's thought-provoking piece is that provided by the Mongols who swept across Eurasia as far as the gates of Vienna until caused to withdraw because of the need of their 'top brass' to go home to deal with the effect of the death of (IIRC) Genghis Khan.
The Mongols also struggled against European fortress belts. Fortification was probably the one aspect of warfare where Europeans excelled over China or the Muslim world.
Mongol hordes of horseman, however well armed, don't work well if they can't easily enter and sack cities.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
I don’t think they want a stable world. I think they want a Chinese led one.
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
China seems less ideologically evangelical than the West is/was.
They are in the “building friends” part of the cycle, which is why they absolutely would let us leap into their arms.
However, I wouldn’t want to be a nation in their debt when the bills come due and they run the show at the world bank and the IMF.
I accept one could easily say we made exactly this bargain with the USA after the war, but a shared set of values around democracy and freedom took the edge off.
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.
Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.
But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.
Yes, exactly so.
I am pissed off that the Ukrainian territory that has been taken has been taken, and it's a travesty, but it is also a fact.
But any ceasefire and peace must allow Ukraine to totally fortify and secure itself- for good.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
I don’t think they want a stable world. I think they want a Chinese led one.
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
China seems less ideologically evangelical than the West is/was.
Certainly on energy it is neither the ideologically anti-renewable stance of the Trump administration nor Ed Miliband's anti fossil fuel zeal.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
What better expression of a belief in liberal democracy than a vigorous defence of Brexit - the only example in recent history of a major Western democracy trusting the people to have a say on such a question. Brexit Britain is the true beacon of the West.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
I don’t think they want a stable world. I think they want a Chinese led one.
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
China seems less ideologically evangelical than the West is/was.
They are in the “building friends” part of the cycle, which is why they absolutely would let us leap into their arms.
However, I wouldn’t want to be a nation in their debt when the bills come due and they run the show at the world bank and the IMF.
I accept one could easily say we made exactly this bargain with the USA after the war, but a shared set of values around democracy and freedom took the edge off.
I doubt we really disagree.
The point i am trying to make is simply that the U.S. is less reliable than it was. That shared set of values that made the U.S. an unthinkingly obvious choice are now severely frayed; we need to think much more about granting hegemonic power to anyone. And we need to think about how we better leverage our own position in a world that is increasingly dominated by ideologically unsympathetic powers.
I’ve been concerned about Chinese influence longer than most of you have had hot dinners. I have posted before that I actually taught at university by someone later revealed to be a Chinese spy of sorts.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Borrowing? For capital investment? To gain a return on the investment? Also known as capitalism?
Naah, it’ll never catch on.
It's never investment though, its borrowing to pay for wages.
If I pay the wages of a teacher and that teacher teaches many classes of pupils useful skills that mean they get better, more porductive jobs, then the wages of the teacher were an investment.
Alos Sure Start had a real impact on saving money on crime, social disruption, etc. etc. down the line. But it was chopped by Mr Osborne.
+1 - you only need to look at the boom in child Social care costs to show the benefits of providing support and training to parents while identifying issues early when they can be resolved cheaply.
Didn’t the evidence in the USA for head start, that this was based, was, to be polite ‘mixed’, that at best it provided mild improvements, but nothing remotely that would justify on a value for money, with targeted schemes having much better outcomes.
I really liked your article @Sean_F . I think the only criticism is that all the quotes should have been in quote marks and italicised, but that's a style point easily fixed. Well done.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
Yep - the world has 2 superpowers now - the USA and China. We can't ignore China and if the USA is untrustworthy (as it's been all year) committing to what the USA wants is pointless because it's desires will change next week..
I’ve been reading Apple in China.
Highly recommended and quite eye opening
I don’t think it was an intentional outcome (at least initially), but Apple (and then Tesla) made a deal whereby they secured a massive competitive advantage, but in return empowered Chinese companies to destroy Apple/Tesla’s western competition
Re Nathan Gill. Are there countries designated 'enemies' which therefore makes you a traitor if you ask questions or do other things on their behalf?
It seems very unscientific. There must be many grey areas. And does it have to be money or will lavish hospitality do?
You mean hospitality like a party with booze and call girls in an Italian villa? No, I think that is fine.
I suspect Nathan crossed a line when he accepted £5000 to ask the question. Compelling evidence suggests, had he asked almost exactly the same question, and in the same forum, there would be no come back whatsover without evidence of the bung.
Would two tickets to a Six Nations fixture at HQ constitute a bribe? If they were freebies from O2 probably not. If they were tickets issued on the back of Putin's personal Twickenham debenture in order to ask questions in the European Parliament, that might be different.
Neil Hamilton resigned over cash for questions but I do not think he was imprisoned. Let's face it, bungs are legal if properly structured and declared, so it is more the treason aspect. Although Gill was convicted of and sentenced for bribery so who knows?
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
No-one had ever heard of him. Welsh politics occupies a tiny niche corner in people's minds in UK politics as a whole. He had never been elected to anything that anyone cared about. Mormon bishops are even more niche than minor Welsh politicians. He has got 10 years for saying stuff when no-one knew or cared he had said it at the time. (Seems on the high side to me, but I am not sure). He is intrinsically boring.
Rayner held a top position in running the country. She is intrinsically box office.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
I don’t think they want a stable world. I think they want a Chinese led one.
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
China seems less ideologically evangelical than the West is/was.
They are in the “building friends” part of the cycle, which is why they absolutely would let us leap into their arms.
However, I wouldn’t want to be a nation in their debt when the bills come due and they run the show at the world bank and the IMF.
I accept one could easily say we made exactly this bargain with the USA after the war, but a shared set of values around democracy and freedom took the edge off.
I doubt we really disagree.
The point i am trying to make is simply that the U.S. is less reliable than it was. That shared set of values that made the U.S. an unthinkingly obvious choice are now severely frayed; we need to think much more about granting hegemonic power to anyone. And we need to think about how we better leverage our own position in a world that is increasingly dominated by ideologically unsympathetic powers.
I’ve been concerned about Chinese influence longer than most of you have had hot dinners. I have posted before that I actually taught at university by someone later revealed to be a Chinese spy of sorts.
Ok, yes it does seem like we are actually on the same page. Though this is the internet so we should argue for another twenty posts I suppose…..
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
He's 74 years old and so was born in, what, 1951? He bought a house in 1982 at the age of 31 and now, forty-three years later, he still hasn't paid it off??? What the heck??
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
No-one had ever heard of him. Welsh politics occupies a tiny niche corner in people's minds in UK politics as a whole. He had never been elected to anything that anyone cared about. Mormon bishops are even more niche than minor Welsh politicians. He has got 10 years for saying stuff when no-one knew or cared he had said it at the time. (Seems on the high side to me, but I am not sure). He is intrinsically boring.
Rayner held a top position in running the country. She is intrinsically box office.
No, he’s right. This should be headline news.
Reform is getting the “minor party free pass” when it’s leading in the polls. If the top Labour politician in Wales had been found doing this in 2022 it would have been a major scandal and affected the 2024 election.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
I think you can make a pretty good case that money accrued through property price rises (eg buy a house for £50,000, which 30 years later sells for £500,000) is not money you’ve paid tax on.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
No-one had ever heard of him. Welsh politics occupies a tiny niche corner in people's minds in UK politics as a whole. He had never been elected to anything that anyone cared about. Mormon bishops are even more niche than minor Welsh politicians. He has got 10 years for saying stuff when no-one knew or cared he had said it at the time. (Seems on the high side to me, but I am not sure). He is intrinsically boring.
Rayner held a top position in running the country. She is intrinsically box office.
No, he’s right. This should be headline news.
Reform is getting the “minor party free pass” when it’s leading in the polls. If the top Labour politician in Wales had been found doing this in 2022 it would have been a major scandal and affected the 2024 election.
Of course it would have been, since Labour are in power in Wales. I had not heard of this guy until he was convicted, which says something of his profile and importance.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
No-one had ever heard of him. Welsh politics occupies a tiny niche corner in people's minds in UK politics as a whole. He had never been elected to anything that anyone cared about. Mormon bishops are even more niche than minor Welsh politicians. He has got 10 years for saying stuff when no-one knew or cared he had said it at the time. (Seems on the high side to me, but I am not sure). He is intrinsically boring.
Rayner held a top position in running the country. She is intrinsically box office.
No, he’s right. This should be headline news.
Reform is getting the “minor party free pass” when it’s leading in the polls. If the top Labour politician in Wales had been found doing this in 2022 it would have been a major scandal and affected the 2024 election.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
I'm afraid it is.
The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.
I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.
Nobody particularly cares about your approbation or disapprobation.
Anyone who can witness the Dmitriev-Witkoff plan and think that the U.S. remains the only choice is simply not thinking straight.
You cared enough to respond immediately, which tells us everything we need to know.
We don't need to resort to hyperbole to make points about Trump, and we should keep our assessments in proportion - lest we make naive decisions.
So it turns out that great swathes of X (Twitter) MAGA types actually hail from Africa, Asia, and so on. And a decent chunk of Scottish Nationalists too.
Re Nathan Gill. Are there countries designated 'enemies' which therefore makes you a traitor if you ask questions or do other things on their behalf?
It seems very unscientific. There must be many grey areas. And does it have to be money or will lavish hospitality do?
You mean hospitality like a party with booze and call girls in an Italian villa? No, I think that is fine.
I suspect Nathan crossed a line when he accepted £5000 to ask the question. Compelling evidence suggests, had he asked almost exactly the same question, and in the same forum, there would be no come back whatsover without evidence of the bung.
Would two tickets to a Six Nations fixture at HQ constitute a bribe? If they were freebies from O2 probably not. If they were tickets issued on the back of Putin's personal Twickenham debenture in order to ask questions in the European Parliament, that might be different.
Neil Hamilton resigned over cash for questions but I do not think he was imprisoned. Let's face it, bungs are legal if properly structured and declared, so it is more the treason aspect. Although Gill was convicted of and sentenced for bribery so who knows?
That being so that begs a number of questions.
If it was the content of Nathan's speech that raised the eyebrow, another former MEP has some enormous questions to answer.
So it turns out that great swathes of X (Twitter) MAGA types actually hail from Africa, Asia, and so on. And a decent chunk of Scottish Nationalists too.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
I'm afraid it is.
The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.
I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.
China is the enemy without. The Trump administration is the enemy within.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
I'm afraid it is.
The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.
I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.
Nobody particularly cares about your approbation or disapprobation.
Anyone who can witness the Dmitriev-Witkoff plan and think that the U.S. remains the only choice is simply not thinking straight.
You cared enough to respond immediately, which tells us everything we need to know.
We don't need to resort to hyperbole to make points about Trump, and we should keep our assessments in proportion - lest we make naive decisions.
Oh get over yourself.
If I have time, I generally respond to anyone who responds to me.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
No-one had ever heard of him. Welsh politics occupies a tiny niche corner in people's minds in UK politics as a whole. He had never been elected to anything that anyone cared about. Mormon bishops are even more niche than minor Welsh politicians. He has got 10 years for saying stuff when no-one knew or cared he had said it at the time. (Seems on the high side to me, but I am not sure). He is intrinsically boring.
Rayner held a top position in running the country. She is intrinsically box office.
No, he’s right. This should be headline news.
Reform is getting the “minor party free pass” when it’s leading in the polls. If the top Labour politician in Wales had been found doing this in 2022 it would have been a major scandal and affected the 2024 election.
Of course it would have been, since Labour are in power in Wales. I had not heard of this guy until he was convicted, which says something of his profile and importance.
I disagree. That’s true of everyone in Reform at the minute, bar Farage and maybe Tice; but in context any senior elected Reform official (and this man was) would be likely to be senior in any Reform Government, precisely because they have come from nowhere.
The story should be “you have never heard of these people, but if Reform wins they will be running the country: look at what this one did”.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
He's 74 years old and so was born in, what, 1951? He bought a house in 1982 at the age of 31 and now, forty-three years later, he still hasn't paid it off??? What the heck??
Many people in that kind of situation. It almost feels unkind to not be particularly sympathetic, but it's not always easy to be, as sometimes it is just poor decision-making and financial management.
I have an uncle who worked 51 years from 15 years old at mostly minimum wage jobs, and he paid off his mortgage 20 years ago and has decent levels of savings to give him security. On the other hand my father has worked much better paid middle class jobs (albeit not massively paying ones) for 50 years and has to rent, and basically no savings, and is at least partly reliant on me and other family members.
I really liked your article @Sean_F . I think the only criticism is that all the quotes should have been in quote marks and italicised, but that's a style point easily fixed. Well done.
So it turns out that great swathes of X (Twitter) MAGA types actually hail from Africa, Asia, and so on. And a decent chunk of Scottish Nationalists too.
Russian psyops remain formidable.
Neen't even be Russian.
Musk monetises engagement, so posting enough ragebait beats working for a living. (And, to be fair, plenty of newspapers and news channels have done the same before.)
So it turns out that great swathes of X (Twitter) MAGA types actually hail from Africa, Asia, and so on. And a decent chunk of Scottish Nationalists too.
Russian psyops remain formidable.
I am coming round to the idea that the way to fix the internet is simply to remove anonymity and open the windows to let the metaphorical fresh air in.
I would stop posting here, and I know that would horrify you all, but I think the world can live without me if it deals Putin a blow.
So it turns out that great swathes of X (Twitter) MAGA types actually hail from Africa, Asia, and so on. And a decent chunk of Scottish Nationalists too.
Russian psyops remain formidable.
Why Russian psyops? Much of it is organic because a few hundred dollars a month from advertising revenue sharing goes a long way in those countries. People imitate genuine accounts and republish similar content for engagement.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
No-one had ever heard of him. Welsh politics occupies a tiny niche corner in people's minds in UK politics as a whole. He had never been elected to anything that anyone cared about. Mormon bishops are even more niche than minor Welsh politicians. He has got 10 years for saying stuff when no-one knew or cared he had said it at the time. (Seems on the high side to me, but I am not sure). He is intrinsically boring.
Rayner held a top position in running the country. She is intrinsically box office.
No, he’s right. This should be headline news.
Reform is getting the “minor party free pass” when it’s leading in the polls. If the top Labour politician in Wales had been found doing this in 2022 it would have been a major scandal and affected the 2024 election.
Of course it would have been, since Labour are in power in Wales. I had not heard of this guy until he was convicted, which says something of his profile and importance.
OK so Reform and Gill are also rans of little consequence to the stability of our nation in respect of the Russian bear. A fair point.
How would you feel if Yvette Cooper as serving Foreign Secretary had shaken off her minders and attended a party in Italy hosted by a former KGB grandee and friend of Putin? Like me you would be outraged.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
It depends what you mean by “reliable”. It is led by a genocidal, racist, nationalist, totalitarian party with powers the old Soviet CCP could only dream of. Until that changes, we should not be its friend.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
I meant reliable as in predictable.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
I don’t think they want a stable world. I think they want a Chinese led one.
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
China seems less ideologically evangelical than the West is/was.
They are in the “building friends” part of the cycle, which is why they absolutely would let us leap into their arms.
However, I wouldn’t want to be a nation in their debt when the bills come due and they run the show at the world bank and the IMF.
I accept one could easily say we made exactly this bargain with the USA after the war, but a shared set of values around democracy and freedom took the edge off.
I doubt we really disagree.
The point i am trying to make is simply that the U.S. is less reliable than it was. That shared set of values that made the U.S. an unthinkingly obvious choice are now severely frayed; we need to think much more about granting hegemonic power to anyone. And we need to think about how we better leverage our own position in a world that is increasingly dominated by ideologically unsympathetic powers.
I’ve been concerned about Chinese influence longer than most of you have had hot dinners. I have posted before that I actually taught at university by someone later revealed to be a Chinese spy of sorts.
There are still far worse than the US out there, and there are some big downsides to a multipolar world, but the US really cannot be trusted anymore, even accepting no nation could be fully trusted before.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
He's 74 years old and so was born in, what, 1951? He bought a house in 1982 at the age of 31 and now, forty-three years later, he still hasn't paid it off??? What the heck??
Did you hear about the new Chinese restaurant near the Bank of England?
It's on Threadnoodle Street!
You've wasted your quota on illustrating a Bank of England joke with a photo that barely shows the Bank of England. Or a Chinese restaurant.
But it's where I am now! A tad chilly though!
Cool. Buy some handwarmers and get a photo of the bank (and iirc from where you took the first one there is a blue plaque on the left for Elizabeth Fry which might come in handy for a crime thread).
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
There is an interesting line of questioning a journalist could take with Nigel Farage:
Nathan Gill your leader in Wales has been imprisoned for taking bribes to ask questions favourable to that power in parliament. You have asked very similar questions in the same parliament.
Do you stand by those questions? Why did you ask those questions? Do you think it's your job to support foreign powers? And given your answers to the previous, do you think Nathan Gill was right to ask his similar questions?
But as you say, no-one wants to ask these questions.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.
I'm afraid it is.
The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.
I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.
Nobody particularly cares about your approbation or disapprobation.
Anyone who can witness the Dmitriev-Witkoff plan and think that the U.S. remains the only choice is simply not thinking straight.
You cared enough to respond immediately, which tells us everything we need to know.
We don't need to resort to hyperbole to make points about Trump, and we should keep our assessments in proportion - lest we make naive decisions.
Oh get over yourself.
If I have time, I generally respond to anyone who responds to me.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
There is an interesting line of questioning a journalist could take with Nigel Farage:
Nathan Gill your leader in Wales has been imprisoned for taking bribes to ask questions favourable to that power in parliament. You have asked very similar questions in the same parliament.
Do you stand by those questions? Why did you ask those questions? Do you think it's your job to support foreign powers? And given your answers to the previous, do you think Nathan Gill was right to ask his similar questions?
But as you say, no-one wants to ask these questions.
Farage was a regular on Russia Today. No-one cares.
Comments
It seems very unscientific. There must be many grey areas. And does it have to be money or will lavish hospitality do?
Part of the tall tale was that they were aggressively taking over the local churches and converting them into American style ministries. Complete with hard right politics. (Inspired by the adventures of Captain Hookhand).
The idea - successful - was to see Open Borders advocates suddenly discovering Keep! Them! Out!
Life imitates art, again.
https://health.sinnfein.ie/strategic-improvement-programmes/
Today, in a special bonus episode, we bring you a major panel from the Ukraine Freedom Summit in London, moderated by Dom and featuring a distinguished lineup: Lt General (Ret.) H.R. McMaster (U.S. National Security Adviser to President Trump, 2017–18), Boris Johnson (Former UK Prime Minister), Sergey Vysotsky (Deputy Chairman, Association of Strategic Communications, National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries), and Michael Kofman (Senior Fellow, Russia & Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcFFDj68pY&list=PLJnf_DDTfIVCYlsANGtNkzMeM9Fdmqzxr&index=2
Interesting commentary, but also some things I found strange, such as H R McMaster (who was National Security Adviser preceding John Bolton in Trump I), who defended the "warrior ethos" changes of Pete Hegseth to the US Armed forces. I find that strange, bearing in mind that they have dismissed servicemen and women as dishonourably discharged, which will undermine future careers, and removing earned pension rights. I can't fathom anyone supporting that vindictiveness.
But I have some doubts that an anti-growth party, which dismisses capital markets as having any importance, is best placed to manage that.
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter.
He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
(This is why megachurch and telechurch don't really work, even if they use the same words and better music.)
But, er, that's not the UK.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
I would go one better and take Trump away from any vestige of power
The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.
Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/
Health, bereavement, divorce can all have played a part of what looks a sad story
https://www.youtube.com/@culturefaithandpolitics
Historically, particularly US fundamentalists would have an aversion to "social action", and rejected what they would term the "social gospel".
In the UK such siloing is rare. John Stott, when he published his important book "Issues Facing Christian Today" back in 1984, characterised it as "Christians have recovered their temporarily mislaid social conscience". He was invoking the tradition of Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury.
I suspect Nathan crossed a line when he accepted £5000 to ask the question. Compelling evidence suggests, had he asked almost exactly the same question, and in the same forum, there would be no come back whatsover without evidence of the bung.
Would two tickets to a Six Nations fixture at HQ constitute a bribe? If they were freebies from O2 probably not. If they were tickets issued on the back of Putin's personal Twickenham debenture in order to ask questions in the European Parliament, that might be different.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
The US is still a fellow democracy, and it is far too early to write it off.
But unless there's a genuine electoral check on the new right next year, and in 2028, then I might reconsider both those things.
A fully authoritarian US might be every bit as dangerous as China. And less predictable.
But it is possible we don’t need to be direct enemies unless or until it invades Taiwan. Though for me the genocide is enough and we should not take its goods or its money.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c33mv4y2187t
Sadly, they can resonate and have political consequences.
@Gardenwalker I don't think you would have to try too hard to find what you are looking for.
The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.
I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.
I have almost zero ideological affinity with the Chinese regime. However, I agree with the previous poster, they appear to desire a stable world order. Upon that narrow shared interest, deals can be made.
Echoes of a former Prime Minister who once said Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts. We all know how that ended.
Trump really is a loathsome cxnt !
Now to be fair, the West build a U.S. led world after the war, so we cannot criticise them wanting to do the same on principle. But see above - we can’t accept it while they are that sort of a country. We must oppose them and fight for our ideals.
Anyone who can witness the Dmitriev-Witkoff plan and think that the U.S. remains the only choice is simply not thinking straight.
He’s much worse.
Although perhaps it was having two kids what done it.
No one except me seemed to mind Leon's photos of his breakfast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot4KFoWmlYc&list=RDot4KFoWmlYc&start_radio=1
They were obscenely boring.
However, I wouldn’t want to be a nation in their debt when the bills come due and they run the show at the world bank and the IMF.
I accept one could easily say we made exactly this bargain with the USA after the war, but a shared set of values around democracy and freedom took the edge off.
I am pissed off that the Ukrainian territory that has been taken has been taken, and it's a travesty, but it is also a fact.
But any ceasefire and peace must allow Ukraine to totally fortify and secure itself- for good.
*For three posts before swerving totally off topic.
The point i am trying to make is simply that the U.S. is less reliable than it was. That shared set of values that made the U.S. an unthinkingly obvious choice are now severely frayed; we need to think much more about granting hegemonic power to anyone. And we need to think about how we better leverage our own position in a world that is increasingly dominated by ideologically unsympathetic powers.
I’ve been concerned about Chinese influence longer than most of you have had hot dinners. I have posted before that I actually taught at university by someone later revealed to be a Chinese spy of sorts.
Highly recommended and quite eye opening
I don’t think it was an intentional outcome (at least initially), but Apple (and then Tesla) made a deal whereby they secured a massive competitive advantage, but in return empowered Chinese companies to destroy Apple/Tesla’s western competition
It's on Threadnoodle Street!
Welsh politics occupies a tiny niche corner in people's minds in UK politics as a whole.
He had never been elected to anything that anyone cared about.
Mormon bishops are even more niche than minor Welsh politicians.
He has got 10 years for saying stuff when no-one knew or cared he had said it at the time. (Seems on the high side to me, but I am not sure).
He is intrinsically boring.
Rayner held a top position in running the country.
She is intrinsically box office.
Reform is getting the “minor party free pass” when it’s leading in the polls. If the top Labour politician in Wales had been found doing this in 2022 it would have been a major scandal and affected the 2024 election.
We don't need to resort to hyperbole to make points about Trump, and we should keep our assessments in proportion - lest we make naive decisions.
Russian psyops remain formidable.
If it was the content of Nathan's speech that raised the eyebrow, another former MEP has some enormous questions to answer.
If I have time, I generally respond to anyone who responds to me.
Except WilliamG who I find extremely tedious.
The story should be “you have never heard of these people, but if Reform wins they will be running the country: look at what this one did”.
I have an uncle who worked 51 years from 15 years old at mostly minimum wage jobs, and he paid off his mortgage 20 years ago and has decent levels of savings to give him security. On the other hand my father has worked much better paid middle class jobs (albeit not massively paying ones) for 50 years and has to rent, and basically no savings, and is at least partly reliant on me and other family members.
It was badly directed actually because the header was an interesting one
Musk monetises engagement, so posting enough ragebait beats working for a living. (And, to be fair, plenty of newspapers and news channels have done the same before.)
I would stop posting here, and I know that would horrify you all, but I think the world can live without me if it deals Putin a blow.
How would you feel if Yvette Cooper as serving Foreign Secretary had shaken off her minders and attended a party in Italy hosted by a former KGB grandee and friend of Putin? Like me you would be outraged.
Are you saying that this isn’t transtrains.com ?
Nathan Gill your leader in Wales has been imprisoned for taking bribes to ask questions favourable to that power in parliament. You have asked very similar questions in the same parliament.
Do you stand by those questions? Why did you ask those questions? Do you think it's your job to support foreign powers? And given your answers to the previous, do you think Nathan Gill was right to ask his similar questions?
But as you say, no-one wants to ask these questions.