The pessimist says, 'Everything is shit. The government is corrupt. The economy is collapsing. The housing is literally falling down about us. Even the water tastes of piss. Things can't possibly get worse.'
And the optimist replies, 'They can, they really can.'
(Oddly, if said in 1986 that would have been true.)
73% of Republicans think 2026 will be a great/good year.
Boy, are they about to get smacked upside the head by a reality check.
Especially over health care.
I think the problem with those who still identify with Republicanism is that they are not going to be swayed by anything so trivial as reality.
Donald Trump could literally stand up and say he fed their healthcare checks to the sharks to appease invisible pixies in the pay of the Democrats and they would still believe him.
73% of Republicans think 2026 will be a great/good year.
Boy, are they about to get smacked upside the head by a reality check.
Especially over health care.
I think the problem with those who still identify with Republicanism is that they are not going to be swayed by anything so trivial as reality.
Donald Trump could literally stand up and say he fed their healthcare checks to the sharks to appease invisible pixies in the pay of the Democrats and they would still believe him.
The pessimist says, 'Everything is shit. The government is corrupt. The economy is collapsing. The housing is literally falling down about us. Even the water tastes of piss. Things can't possibly get worse.'
And the optimist replies, 'They can, they really can.'
(Oddly, if said in 1986 that would have been true.)
The best version of that is the line from the Enver Hoxha speech,
““This year will be harder than last year. However, it will be easier than next year.”
I once had a colleague who had that up in their classroom as a motivational poster. That was a strange place to work.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
If you want an even cheerier note, South Korea's demographically screwed, which won't exactly help matters.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
The Tories are scraping the barrel when it comes to staffing their front bench, after Johnson's purges and the ensuing big election defeat. I still don't think they have a way back until those tarnished with misgovernment pre-2024 are replaced by the upcoming generation.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He's overcompensating.
"Scumbag" is quite interesting. To me it feels Anglo-Saxon, as in one of those few insults that the Free Speech Fundamentalists at Youtube have not started censoring yet to protect the delicate blossoms in their audience, but as a pejorative it seems to be from the USA in the 1970s.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
It made me want to embrace our new AI overlords (the main theme of Today, today). Philp made achieving sentient consciousness seem a pretty low bar.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
If you want an even cheerier note, South Korea's demographically screwed, which won't exactly help matters.
So of course is North Korea.
And while they are less demographically screwed in percentage terms than the South, their over-reliance on manpower as against technology makes them much more economically and militarily vulnerable to demographic shocks.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He's overcompensating.
"Scumbag" is quite interesting. To me it feels Anglo-Saxon, as in one of those few insults that the Free Speech Fundamentalists at Youtube have not started censoring yet to protect the delicate blossoms in their audience, but as a pejorative it seems to be from the USA in the 1970s.
Any word they can leave in the current radio friendly version of Fairytale of New York isn’t going to work as a fierce burn.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He's overcompensating.
"Scumbag" is quite interesting. To me it feels Anglo-Saxon, as in one of those few insults that the Free Speech Fundamentalists at Youtube have not started censoring yet to protect the delicate blossoms in their audience, but as a pejorative it seems to be from the USA in the 1970s.
Scumbag took off when the ITV police soap The Bill adopted it as its universal, pre-watershed curse.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He's overcompensating.
"Scumbag" is quite interesting. To me it feels Anglo-Saxon, as in one of those few insults that the Free Speech Fundamentalists at Youtube have not started censoring yet to protect the delicate blossoms in their audience, but as a pejorative it seems to be from the USA in the 1970s.
I would have tended to think it was of US origin in a hard boiled cop show sort of way. On checking I find it was slang for a condom (1939), and earlier part of a sugar refining process.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Circles back to what I said before, this is not about safeguarding to ensure that the person's choice is actually their own, but about satisfying those who object to the very principle.
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
Laws can’t be written for specific cases. They need to be kept simple and designed to protect the vulnerable.
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.
The median US voter thinks 2026 will be about an average year. Democrats will be hoping it will be a worse year before the midterms and Republicans a better year
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
The Tories are scraping the barrel when it comes to staffing their front bench, after Johnson's purges and the ensuing big election defeat. I still don't think they have a way back until those tarnished with misgovernment pre-2024 are replaced by the upcoming generation.
Yet already Badenoch leads Starmer as preferred PM in the latest Ashcroft poll and she was a Cabinet Minister in the last Tory government.
It is the divide on the right stopping the Tories having a poll lead, this Labour government is already so useless many voters are already regretting removing the last Conservative government. Starmer's government is not Blair and New Labour which post 1997 really was a government that could near walk on water
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Circles back to what I said before, this is not about safeguarding to ensure that the person's choice is actually their own, but about satisfying those who object to the very principle.
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
Laws can’t be written for specific cases. They need to be kept simple and designed to protect the vulnerable.
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Zelensky has to agree to any peace deal with Putin first. Putin has also lost lots of men and money in Ukraine and there is no reason China would find it any easier taking Taiwan
73% of Republicans think 2026 will be a great/good year.
Boy, are they about to get smacked upside the head by a reality check.
Especially over health care.
I think the problem with those who still identify with Republicanism is that they are not going to be swayed by anything so trivial as reality.
Donald Trump could literally stand up and say he fed their healthcare checks to the sharks to appease invisible pixies in the pay of the Democrats and they would still believe him.
We could easily see similar figures next year - for example, if Republicanism were becoming a smaller subsample of the overall survey, by late 2026 you might still witness almost unchanged figures for the party breaks, but a significant movement in the headline figures.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Zelensky has to agree to any peace deal with Putin first. Putin has also lost lots of men and money in Ukraine and there is no reason China would find it any easier taking Taiwan
We have spent the last three years hearing how hard to impossible it would be for Ukraine to retake the Crimean peninsula, due to its geography. China invading an island 100 miles away feels like a somewhat harder military challenge. Really it becomes one of Middle Ages castle siege warfare doesn’t it - how long can Taiwan remain holed up without goods getting in or out due to a naval blockade.
Simpson is talking about how much war there has been in 2025, which surprised me as I thought FIFA Peace Prize winner Donald Trump had ended war.
The inaugural FIFA Peace Prize is one thing, but are they going to carry on with it in 2026 and beyond?
After seeing the inaugural winner, would anyone else actually want to join the list?
When I first read about it, I wondered whether it would turn out to be a delayed action insult, with the next one awarded to someone Mr Trump would hate to be bracketed with.
It's all down to the timing of the AI bubble bursting. If it happens this year, then there is no fig leaf for Republicans. It will be brutal.
In an alternative version of 2026 being a bad one, what if 2026 is the year that emergent consciousness arises in AI labs…
Welcome back Leon, we've missed you
I do for one miss Leon’s perspective. He’s still on X of course but he’s a little more restrained on there.
The two good things about Leon were, first, he alerted us to how much pb content was being stolen by the Telegraph and Spectator, and second, he had his finger on the American alt-right pulse.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Circles back to what I said before, this is not about safeguarding to ensure that the person's choice is actually their own, but about satisfying those who object to the very principle.
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
Laws can’t be written for specific cases. They need to be kept simple and designed to protect the vulnerable.
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Zelensky has to agree to any peace deal with Putin first. Putin has also lost lots of men and money in Ukraine and there is no reason China would find it any easier taking Taiwan
Good morning everyone!
One big difference would be that Chinese troops would not be expecting a welcome, as the Russians apparently were in Kyiv. The citizens of Taiwan are a mix of the descendants of Chaing Kai-Shek's army, which fled there when they lost, Chinese who for whatever reason have fled the mainland since, a few Chinese whose families have lived there for generations and the descendants of the original inhabitants who, AIUI, dislike the Chinese on principle.
The pessimist says, 'Everything is shit. The government is corrupt. The economy is collapsing. The housing is literally falling down about us. Even the water tastes of piss. Things can't possibly get worse.'
And the optimist replies, 'They can, they really can.'
(Oddly, if said in 1986 that would have been true.)
The best version of that is the line from the Enver Hoxha speech,
““This year will be harder than last year. However, it will be easier than next year.”
I once had a colleague who had that up in their classroom as a motivational poster. That was a strange place to work.
A good Presbyterian!
Anything worth doing should be hard. If life is easy then you are doing it wrong.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Zelensky has to agree to any peace deal with Putin first. Putin has also lost lots of men and money in Ukraine and there is no reason China would find it any easier taking Taiwan
Good morning everyone!
One big difference would be that Chinese troops would not be expecting a welcome, as the Russians apparently were in Kyiv. The citizens of Taiwan are a mix of the descendants of Chaing Kai-Shek's army, which fled there when they lost, Chinese who for whatever reason have fled the mainland since, a few Chinese whose families have lived there for generations and the descendants of the original inhabitants who, AIUI, dislike the Chinese on principle.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Zelensky has to agree to any peace deal with Putin first. Putin has also lost lots of men and money in Ukraine and there is no reason China would find it any easier taking Taiwan
Good morning everyone!
One big difference would be that Chinese troops would not be expecting a welcome, as the Russians apparently were in Kyiv. The citizens of Taiwan are a mix of the descendants of Chaing Kai-Shek's army, which fled there when they lost, Chinese who for whatever reason have fled the mainland since, a few Chinese whose families have lived there for generations and the descendants of the original inhabitants who, AIUI, dislike the Chinese on principle.
The folks in HK weren't too keen, either
The issue with Hong Kong was, of course, that a significant part of the territory was only leased to the UK, and without that territory the rest wasn't viable, due to lack of resources.
2026: Bannon says that the midterms will mean that MAGA lose power and many of them - himself included as he said - will go to jail.
A number of scenarios: 1) We see more MAGA to democracy defections as we had with MTG? People seeing the inevitability of that Bannon position decide to switch sides early for credit from the authorities once the prosecutions start 2) MAGA arrogantly assume they will win and do nothing. They lose. The prosecutions start. 3) MAGA huff and puff about Democrat lawmakers organising elections in red states being traitors, but allow the elections to go ahead. When they lose they try to declare the results void as the democrats are seditious traitors 4) MAGA declare the democrat lawmakers in red states to be seditious traitors, intercede legally against them, and then against broadcasters and fake news hacks who report on it. This creates unrest which allows MAGA to send in out of state troops to beat the shit out of people. This creates massive unrest allowing the suspension of elections in these red places. Other elections go ahead, Dem representatives terms expire with no election to replace them, MAGA has an absolute majority to pass Enabling Acts 5) Trump is brought down by an undeniable Epstein leak 6) Trump shats himself to death
Note that I have not included a scenario where the midterms proceed unimpeded and MAGA wins. When Bannon has already conceded, this doesn't feel as viable as any of the other scenarios.
So America, you Fascist now or what? We will find out in 2026.
Just to note that Lucy Connolly and Alaa Abdel Fattah together provide a nice tribal test. More or less:
LC is a good but slightly overzealous patriot and AAF is a scumbag AAF is a good but slightly overzealous activist and LC is a scumbag Both LC and AAF are appalling but for liberals free speech is free speech Both LC and AAF are appalling and for liberals the rule of law means that speech can have consequences like prison and losing rights.
No doubt other sub groups exist. I am with the fourth group.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
I particular enjoy watching the Tories denouce Starmer for this guy. That they spent several years trying to do what Starmer did is Fake News. The Liz Truss demanding his release is definitely not related to the Liz Truss denouncing his release.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
I particular enjoy watching the Tories denouce Starmer for this guy. That they spent several years trying to do what Starmer did is Fake News. The Liz Truss demanding his release is definitely not related to the Liz Truss denouncing his release.
Sadly common behaviour. See also Keir Starmer demanding more spending during lockdown and being grumpy about the 'black hole' the Conservatives left.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He's overcompensating.
"Scumbag" is quite interesting. To me it feels Anglo-Saxon, as in one of those few insults that the Free Speech Fundamentalists at Youtube have not started censoring yet to protect the delicate blossoms in their audience, but as a pejorative it seems to be from the USA in the 1970s.
I would have tended to think it was of US origin in a hard boiled cop show sort of way. On checking I find it was slang for a condom (1939), and earlier part of a sugar refining process.
Scumsucker was a term, rather unpleasant given that origin of scumbag, used by eighties late night TV icon, Inspector Sledge Hammer.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
When was Philp's interview on Today? I'm interested to listen.
As Shadow Home Secretary, did he come up with a legally defensible justification for deprivation of citizenship and deportation to be applied to Alaa Abdel Fattah ?
Isn't there a song that Blair used to use which seemed to say the reverse?
yes and people stupidly believed him
Scotland's Tony Blair.
Scottish my arse
C'mon, nothing like several years at Fettes to confirm one's Scottishness.
That notwithstanding, he seemed to have a vast lack of comprehension of Scotland. Turns out George Robertson wasn't the only 'Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead' numpty in New Labour.
'NEWLY released cabinet papers reveal that Tony Blair believed Labour’s devolution settlement had "lanced the boil of separatism" in Scotland and Wales. In a 2004 cabinet discussion on extending powers to Wales, the then prime minister dismissed calls for full law-making authority for the Welsh Assembly, arguing there was “no appetite” in either Wales or Scotland for further devolution. Blair claimed that Labour’s reforms had already “lanced the boil of separatism”.'
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
I particular enjoy watching the Tories denouce Starmer for this guy. That they spent several years trying to do what Starmer did is Fake News. The Liz Truss demanding his release is definitely not related to the Liz Truss denouncing his release.
So did your now current political home. Indeed one Lib Dem peer was doubling down on it today.
It is just a sad reflection on the current state of our politics and politicians.
It is no wonder the three old parties are leeching votes left and right,
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
I particular enjoy watching the Tories denouce Starmer for this guy. That they spent several years trying to do what Starmer did is Fake News. The Liz Truss demanding his release is definitely not related to the Liz Truss denouncing his release.
I always think Philp sounds like the guy at the edge of the fight, not actually throwing punches, but shouting abuse at the other side.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He's overcompensating.
"Scumbag" is quite interesting. To me it feels Anglo-Saxon, as in one of those few insults that the Free Speech Fundamentalists at Youtube have not started censoring yet to protect the delicate blossoms in their audience, but as a pejorative it seems to be from the USA in the 1970s.
I would have tended to think it was of US origin in a hard boiled cop show sort of way. On checking I find it was slang for a condom (1939), and earlier part of a sugar refining process.
Scumsucker was a term, rather unpleasant given that origin of scumbag, used by eighties late night TV icon, Inspector Sledge Hammer.
Google (never read the books) tells me that scumsucker was used in Harry Potter of wizards who were friendly with muggles (=non-wizard people).
Around here, "scum" is the dirt left in water after washing something. So, for example, the ring around a bath after it has been drained.
Equally I first met "slag" as the impurities that bubble to the top of steel in a blast furnace. *
* Nice slow-to-repair targets should the Ukes get around to them?
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Arguably this IS the World War- constant hybrid attacks, sabotage, and provocation. The risks of things getting worse are extremely high.
From the point of view of those in the cross hairs of Russian escalation, there is optimism that the hammering that Russia has received will lead to longer term weakness, and as Tisdall notes, humans are not very good at thinking about things beyond one lifetime, Xi Jinping is 72, Putin, 73, Trump, 79. The immediate context is obviously highly unstable, but there is a growing sense that all of these leaders are failures. I stand by my view that Trump has a very high chance of being politically crippled by the midterms and in any event I am sceptical that he will survive his term, so those betting that he will go for a third term are taking a very extreme risk. Xi clear faces a significant struggle to maintain control over the Party, and there is evidence that he will not maintain his grip for much longer. As for Putin, the disaster he has unleashed on his own country is making Russia unusually politically brittle, and his constant actions to avoid assassination do not speak of a triumphantly confident ruler. These old men cannot imagine that life will go on without them, but it will, and quite soon. We too can imagine life without them, and in all three cases, it is hard to consider that their replacements could be any worse.
As grim as things look today, the night is darkest just before the dawn. And I promise you, the dawn is coming.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
I particular enjoy watching the Tories denouce Starmer for this guy. That they spent several years trying to do what Starmer did is Fake News. The Liz Truss demanding his release is definitely not related to the Liz Truss denouncing his release.
So did your now current political home. Indeed one Lib Dem peer was doubling down on it today.
It is just a sad reflection on the current state of our politics and politicians.
It is no wonder the three old parties are leeching votes left and right,
To be fair, the council by-elections suggest that the LibDems are gaining votes. Certainly gaining seats.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Arguably this IS the World War- constant hybrid attacks, sabotage, and provocation. The risks of things getting worse are extremely high.
From the point of view of those in the cross hairs of Russian escalation, there is optimism that the hammering that Russia has received will lead to longer term weakness, and as Tisdall notes, humans are not very good at thinking about things beyond one lifetime, Xi Jinping is 72, Putin, 73, Trump, 79. The immediate context is obviously highly unstable, but there is a growing sense that all of these leaders are failures. I stand by my view that Trump has a very high chance of being politically crippled by the midterms and in any event I am sceptical that he will survive his term, so those betting that he will go for a third term are taking a very extreme risk. Xi clear faces a significant struggle to maintain control over the Party, and there is evidence that he will not maintain his grip for much longer. As for Putin, the disaster he has unleashed on his own country is making Russia unusually politically brittle, and his constant actions to avoid assassination do not speak of a triumphantly confident ruler. These old men cannot imagine that life will go on without them, but it will, and quite soon. We too can imagine life without them, and in all three cases, it is hard to consider that their replacements could be any worse.
As grim as things look today, the night is darkest just before the dawn. And I promise you, the dawn is coming.
I sincerely, and for the sake of my grandchildren, hope that you are right!
Isn't there a song that Blair used to use which seemed to say the reverse?
yes and people stupidly believed him
Scotland's Tony Blair.
Scottish my arse
As O'Connell said of the Dublin born Iron Duke of Wellington "Being born is a stable doesn't make you a horse", but then Blair never really claimed to be Scottish. Meanwhile one of likeliest possible birthplaces of Robert the Bruce is Writtle near Chelmsford, so being born somewhere, just to be close to your mother doesn't seem to mean that much. Otherwise no true Scot could be born outside of Ayrshire... ;-)
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
If you want an even cheerier note, South Korea's demographically screwed, which won't exactly help matters.
So of course is North Korea.
And while they are less demographically screwed in percentage terms than the South, their over-reliance on manpower as against technology makes them much more economically and militarily vulnerable to demographic shocks.
S Korea is growing far more amenable to immigration - and there are also tentative signs the demographic collapse is slowing. I wouldn't be particularly pessimistic..
Isn't there a song that Blair used to use which seemed to say the reverse?
yes and people stupidly believed him
Scotland's Tony Blair.
Scottish my arse
As O'Connell said of the Dublin born Iron Duke of Wellington "Being born is a stable doesn't make you a horse", but then Blair never really claimed to be Scottish. Meanwhile one of likeliest possible birthplaces of Robert the Bruce is Writtle near Chelmsford, so being born somewhere, just to be close to your mother doesn't seem to mean that much. Otherwise no true Scot could be born outside of Ayrshire... ;-)
Nice place Writtle. About half way between HYUFD and me, if that means anything!
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
When was Philp's interview on Today? I'm interested to listen.
As Shadow Home Secretary, did he come up with a legally defensible justification for deprivation of citizenship and deportation to be applied to Alaa Abdel Fattah ?
Can’t remember - if it hadn’t been for the scumbag repetition I would have completely ignored it.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
When was Philp's interview on Today? I'm interested to listen.
As Shadow Home Secretary, did he come up with a legally defensible justification for deprivation of citizenship and deportation to be applied to Alaa Abdel Fattah ?
Xi clear faces a significant struggle to maintain control over the Party, and there is evidence that he will not maintain his grip for much longer.
What's this evidence? (Not at all saying you're wrong, this is just the first time I've heard about him struggling to maintain control of his party.)
I do recall a weaker version which is that when he abolished term limits to allow his own rule to continue, President Xi undermined the succession system. Now that Xi is in his 70s and not immortal...
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
Yes that was jarring. Shadow Home Secretary sounding like a ranty bloke on the internet.
KrisPhilp@angrybrit257 - Just an ordinary dad who's had enough and won't take it anymore
"Guy's a fucking scumbag end of"
Personally I'd like to see this sort of commentary in public lead to loss of citizenship - but my more mature side realises this would be a very slippery slope indeed.
Just to note that Lucy Connolly and Alaa Abdel Fattah together provide a nice tribal test. More or less:
LC is a good but slightly overzealous patriot and AAF is a scumbag AAF is a good but slightly overzealous activist and LC is a scumbag Both LC and AAF are appalling but for liberals free speech is free speech Both LC and AAF are appalling and for liberals the rule of law means that speech can have consequences like prison and losing rights.
No doubt other sub groups exist. I am with the fourth group.
I would propose another subgroup.
People are capable of change and shouldn't necessarily have past actions held against them in perpetuity. AAF has apologised for his tweets from ~10 years ago, so I am willing to give him a second chance and judge him on subsequent actions. LC has served her time and deserves a chance to demonstrate that she has learned from the experience.
I mention this not to laugh at PB's accountants or marvel at the rise of AI but to highlight this detail from the story: In 2022, EY agreed to pay a record $100m (£74m) to US regulators over claims that dozens of its employees cheated on an ethics exam...
This should be the first and possibly only question in the ethics exam: is it ethical to cheat in an ethics exam?
Xi clear faces a significant struggle to maintain control over the Party, and there is evidence that he will not maintain his grip for much longer.
What's this evidence? (Not at all saying you're wrong, this is just the first time I've heard about him struggling to maintain control of his party.)
There was a lot of excited commentary following a purge of senior military figures before a significant Party meeting earlier in the year (5th Plenum or something) which people interpreted as a sign that Xi's powerbase was being undermined.
This subsided somewhat after the meeting itself, though perhaps it's still possible to see that an alternative locus of power is active in a way that hasn't happened since Xi consolidated his power.
Let me see if I can find a link to a useful summary.
It's all down to the timing of the AI bubble bursting. If it happens this year, then there is no fig leaf for Republicans. It will be brutal.
In an alternative version of 2026 being a bad one, what if 2026 is the year that emergent consciousness arises in AI labs…
Welcome back Leon, we've missed you
I do for one miss Leon’s perspective. He’s still on X of course but he’s a little more restrained on there.
I think the site has improved immeasurably since he left. He was a bore, and he was relentless. He killed every conversation. Now there is a much healthier ecosystem and the ratio of interesting to annoying is much better.
Xi clear faces a significant struggle to maintain control over the Party, and there is evidence that he will not maintain his grip for much longer.
What's this evidence? (Not at all saying you're wrong, this is just the first time I've heard about him struggling to maintain control of his party.)
There was a lot of excited commentary following a purge of senior military figures before a significant Party meeting earlier in the year (5th Plenum or something) which people interpreted as a sign that Xi's powerbase was being undermined.
This subsided somewhat after the meeting itself, though perhaps it's still possible to see that an alternative locus of power is active in a way that hasn't happened since Xi consolidated his power.
Let me see if I can find a link to a useful summary.
It's all down to the timing of the AI bubble bursting. If it happens this year, then there is no fig leaf for Republicans. It will be brutal.
In an alternative version of 2026 being a bad one, what if 2026 is the year that emergent consciousness arises in AI labs…
Welcome back Leon, we've missed you
I do for one miss Leon’s perspective. He’s still on X of course but he’s a little more restrained on there.
I think the site has improved immeasurably since he left. He was a bore, and he was relentless. He killed every conversation. Now there is a much healthier ecosystem and the ratio of interesting to annoying is much better.
He could, and often did, bang on a bit about things. When he was reporting on his travels he was interesting, though!
Just to note that Lucy Connolly and Alaa Abdel Fattah together provide a nice tribal test. More or less:
LC is a good but slightly overzealous patriot and AAF is a scumbag AAF is a good but slightly overzealous activist and LC is a scumbag Both LC and AAF are appalling but for liberals free speech is free speech Both LC and AAF are appalling and for liberals the rule of law means that speech can have consequences like prison and losing rights.
No doubt other sub groups exist. I am with the fourth group.
I would propose another subgroup.
People are capable of change and shouldn't necessarily have past actions held against them in perpetuity. AAF has apologised for his tweets from ~10 years ago, so I am willing to give him a second chance and judge him on subsequent actions. LC has served her time and deserves a chance to demonstrate that she has learned from the experience.
There's also the smaller one of politicians aspiring to be PM, who advocate the stripping of citizenship from someone, for the same sort of speech offence they themselves commit.
Isn't there a song that Blair used to use which seemed to say the reverse?
yes and people stupidly believed him
Scotland's Tony Blair.
Scottish my arse
As O'Connell said of the Dublin born Iron Duke of Wellington "Being born is a stable doesn't make you a horse", but then Blair never really claimed to be Scottish. Meanwhile one of likeliest possible birthplaces of Robert the Bruce is Writtle near Chelmsford, so being born somewhere, just to be close to your mother doesn't seem to mean that much. Otherwise no true Scot could be born outside of Ayrshire... ;-)
Nice place Writtle. About half way between HYUFD and me, if that means anything!
Would that make it a sort of steely One Nation Conservative with some limited Thatcherite sympathies?
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
The pessimist says, 'Everything is shit. The government is corrupt. The economy is collapsing. The housing is literally falling down about us. Even the water tastes of piss. Things can't possibly get worse.'
And the optimist replies, 'They can, they really can.'
(Oddly, if said in 1986 that would have been true.)
The best version of that is the line from the Enver Hoxha speech,
““This year will be harder than last year. However, it will be easier than next year.”
I once had a colleague who had that up in their classroom as a motivational poster. That was a strange place to work.
A good Presbyterian!
Anything worth doing should be hard. If life is easy then you are doing it wrong.
[Sunil kicks back and puts his feet up on the coffee-table]
Isn't there a song that Blair used to use which seemed to say the reverse?
yes and people stupidly believed him
Scotland's Tony Blair.
Scottish my arse
As O'Connell said of the Dublin born Iron Duke of Wellington "Being born is a stable doesn't make you a horse", but then Blair never really claimed to be Scottish. Meanwhile one of likeliest possible birthplaces of Robert the Bruce is Writtle near Chelmsford, so being born somewhere, just to be close to your mother doesn't seem to mean that much. Otherwise no true Scot could be born outside of Ayrshire... ;-)
Nice place Writtle. About half way between HYUFD and me, if that means anything!
Would that make it a sort of steely One Nation Conservative with some limited Thatcherite sympathies?
Don't you mean 'Steely'?
No-one's ever suggested I've got any Conservative sympathies. In fact, to do so is probably actionable.
"Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
Arguably this IS the World War- constant hybrid attacks, sabotage, and provocation. The risks of things getting worse are extremely high.
From the point of view of those in the cross hairs of Russian escalation, there is optimism that the hammering that Russia has received will lead to longer term weakness, and as Tisdall notes, humans are not very good at thinking about things beyond one lifetime, Xi Jinping is 72, Putin, 73, Trump, 79. The immediate context is obviously highly unstable, but there is a growing sense that all of these leaders are failures. I stand by my view that Trump has a very high chance of being politically crippled by the midterms and in any event I am sceptical that he will survive his term, so those betting that he will go for a third term are taking a very extreme risk. Xi clear faces a significant struggle to maintain control over the Party, and there is evidence that he will not maintain his grip for much longer. As for Putin, the disaster he has unleashed on his own country is making Russia unusually politically brittle, and his constant actions to avoid assassination do not speak of a triumphantly confident ruler. These old men cannot imagine that life will go on without them, but it will, and quite soon. We too can imagine life without them, and in all three cases, it is hard to consider that their replacements could be any worse.
As grim as things look today, the night is darkest just before the dawn. And I promise you, the dawn is coming.
A readable post at last. Quite a relief after an excruciating 24 hour deep dive into an unknown Egyptian's fifteen year old posting history on twitter
I was thinking of reposting Leon's Wuhan Virology theories for political stimulus
Just to note that Lucy Connolly and Alaa Abdel Fattah together provide a nice tribal test. More or less:
LC is a good but slightly overzealous patriot and AAF is a scumbag AAF is a good but slightly overzealous activist and LC is a scumbag Both LC and AAF are appalling but for liberals free speech is free speech Both LC and AAF are appalling and for liberals the rule of law means that speech can have consequences like prison and losing rights.
No doubt other sub groups exist. I am with the fourth group.
I would propose another subgroup.
People are capable of change and shouldn't necessarily have past actions held against them in perpetuity. AAF has apologised for his tweets from ~10 years ago, so I am willing to give him a second chance and judge him on subsequent actions. LC has served her time and deserves a chance to demonstrate that she has learned from the experience.
AAF’s apology was hardly fulsome though. It was heavily caveated and he even used the Alf Garnett defence. I hope I never hear of him again and he goes on to be a useful, productive and hard working member of society and a net contributor and not another leech on the hard pressed taxpayer.
His sister, does she live here, has tweeted in support of Hamas too.
LC is out on parole so is still serving her sentence. She said a stupid comment. With AAF he had a long track record of bigotry. I don’t know if she did or the comment was a one off. She’s not a hero. She also, as people keep forgetting, confessed her crime by pleading guilty. Reform makes an error platforming her.
Quite frankly this goes beyond him. It’s more a reflection of the charities who lobbied for him and the political class and celebs who supported him even knowing what was known about his social media commentary and he even had his nomination for an award withdrawn due to his anti semitism?
Simpson is talking about how much war there has been in 2025, which surprised me as I thought FIFA Peace Prize winner Donald Trump had ended war.
The inaugural FIFA Peace Prize is one thing, but are they going to carry on with it in 2026 and beyond?
After seeing the inaugural winner, would anyone else actually want to join the list?
Fools
Award it to Trump next year. Again.
British government pays half to make United Passions II - The Hero Arrives. About FIFA & Trump.
Then at the premiere, get Trump to sign off on what we want.
Cheap at the price.
I expect FIFA to rotate the subject of the prize. Since the 2034 competition is to be hosted by Saudi Arabia, I am expecting FIFA to award MBS a prize for services to journalism in 2033.
The pessimist says, 'Everything is shit. The government is corrupt. The economy is collapsing. The housing is literally falling down about us. Even the water tastes of piss. Things can't possibly get worse.'
And the optimist replies, 'They can, they really can.'
(Oddly, if said in 1986 that would have been true.)
The best version of that is the line from the Enver Hoxha speech,
““This year will be harder than last year. However, it will be easier than next year.”
I once had a colleague who had that up in their classroom as a motivational poster. That was a strange place to work.
A good Presbyterian!
Anything worth doing should be hard. If life is easy then you are doing it wrong.
If preserving life is easy then you are doing it wrong?
Isn't there a song that Blair used to use which seemed to say the reverse?
yes and people stupidly believed him
Scotland's Tony Blair.
Scottish my arse
As O'Connell said of the Dublin born Iron Duke of Wellington "Being born is a stable doesn't make you a horse", but then Blair never really claimed to be Scottish. Meanwhile one of likeliest possible birthplaces of Robert the Bruce is Writtle near Chelmsford, so being born somewhere, just to be close to your mother doesn't seem to mean that much. Otherwise no true Scot could be born outside of Ayrshire... ;-)
Nice place Writtle. About half way between HYUFD and me, if that means anything!
Would that make it a sort of steely One Nation Conservative with some limited Thatcherite sympathies?
Don't you mean 'Steely'?
No-one's ever suggested I've got any Conservative sympathies. In fact, to do so is probably actionable.
Well, yes. That’s where I was trying to pitch midway between you and Hyufd given you’re on the centre left.
Just to note that Lucy Connolly and Alaa Abdel Fattah together provide a nice tribal test. More or less:
LC is a good but slightly overzealous patriot and AAF is a scumbag AAF is a good but slightly overzealous activist and LC is a scumbag Both LC and AAF are appalling but for liberals free speech is free speech Both LC and AAF are appalling and for liberals the rule of law means that speech can have consequences like prison and losing rights.
No doubt other sub groups exist. I am with the fourth group.
I would propose another subgroup.
People are capable of change and shouldn't necessarily have past actions held against them in perpetuity. AAF has apologised for his tweets from ~10 years ago, so I am willing to give him a second chance and judge him on subsequent actions. LC has served her time and deserves a chance to demonstrate that she has learned from the experience.
AAF’s apology was hardly fulsome though. It was heavily caveated and he even used the Alf Garnett defence. I hope I never hear of him again and he goes on to be a useful, productive and hard working member of society and a net contributor and not another leech on the hard pressed taxpayer.
Quite frankly this goes beyond him. It’s more a reflection of the charities who lobbied for him and the political class and celebs who supported him even knowing what was known about his social media commentary and he even had his nomination for an award withdrawn due to his anti semitism?
Sure, you are quite within your rights to still have a poor opinion of the guy. I said on the previous thread that reading his apology brought Leon to mind. Make of that what you will.
But we don't have to like everyone who is a British citizen to get along peaceably.
The Guardian article about his apology references an essay he had written addressing these tweets following the withdrawal of his nomination for that prize, so that suggests many of those who supported him felt he had apologised and disowned them already.
I don’t know if anyone listened to Philp on Today this morning about the tweety racist chap but my god it was cringe inducing for the reason he kept calling the guy a “scumbag”. Now if he had done it once it would have been fair enough but he did it three times in such a way it seemed completely forced.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He's overcompensating.
"Scumbag" is quite interesting. To me it feels Anglo-Saxon, as in one of those few insults that the Free Speech Fundamentalists at Youtube have not started censoring yet to protect the delicate blossoms in their audience, but as a pejorative it seems to be from the USA in the 1970s.
I would have tended to think it was of US origin in a hard boiled cop show sort of way. On checking I find it was slang for a condom (1939), and earlier part of a sugar refining process.
Scumsucker was a term, rather unpleasant given that origin of scumbag, used by eighties late night TV icon, Inspector Sledge Hammer.
…whose approach to domestic violence was ultra-woke.
Comments
And I’m also amazed by their optimism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4qp17e1lqo
A pessimist and an optimist meet in Moscow.
The pessimist says, 'Everything is shit. The government is corrupt. The economy is collapsing. The housing is literally falling down about us. Even the water tastes of piss. Things can't possibly get worse.'
And the optimist replies, 'They can, they really can.'
(Oddly, if said in 1986 that would have been true.)
Boy, are they about to get smacked upside the head by a reality check.
Especially over health care.
Donald Trump could literally stand up and say he fed their healthcare checks to the sharks to appease invisible pixies in the pay of the Democrats and they would still believe him.
!
Good morning, everybody.
Stripped of explanations and jokes and more than 5,000 words, their awards list is:-
The 2028 Race Has Begun. Here’s Who’s Winning.
THE DEMOCRATS
Attack Dog Medal of Honor
California Gov. Gavin Newsom
Intra-Party Instigator of the Year
Former Vice President Kamala Harris
Running in Place Award
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg
Excellence in Socialism and Bridge-Building Prize
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
The ‘Got a Bill Signed Into Law’ Blue Ribbon
Rep. Ro Khanna
A-For-Effort Certificates
Senate Category:
Cory Booker, Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, Ruben Gallego and Chris Murphy
A-For-Effort Certificates
Governor category:
JB Pritzker, Josh Shapiro, Tim Walz, Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Green
THE REPUBLICANS
The Thomas Marshall Prize for Vice Presidential Existence
Vice President JD Vance
The Eager Sidekick Award
Secretary of State Marco Rubio
The Roscoe Conkling Award for Achievement in Resignation
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
The Profile in Niceness Prize
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox
Plaque for Potentially Delusional Persistence
Sen. Ted Cruz
The Milk Carton Award for Missing Politicians
Governor Category:
Ron DeSantis, Brian Kemp, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Glenn Youngkin
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/28/presidential-race-2028-candidates-analysis-00695164
It might be worth bookmarking if you are considering a bet on the race, if only as a reminder of how many rivals your fancy must overcome.
““This year will be harder than last year. However, it will be easier than next year.”
I once had a colleague who had that up in their classroom as a motivational poster. That was a strange place to work.
It doesn’t help that Philp sounds like a wet lettuce trying to sound tough but “scumbag” is a bit of a weak attack word and the whole thing ended up blunting his attack and making himself sound a bit silly.
He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.
From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.
If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.
And the process has already started."
They will blame Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA
It's a bit like scheduling the British Grand Prix on Remembrance Sunday.
Don't scoff at the idea of the British Grand Prix in November, back in 2000 they scheduled the British Grand Prix in April.
And while they are less demographically screwed in percentage terms than the South, their over-reliance on manpower as against technology makes them much more economically and militarily vulnerable to demographic shocks.
More here:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/north-korea-s-population-problem
On checking I find it was slang for a condom (1939), and earlier part of a sugar refining process.
Laws can sometimes be written for specific cases, and this was once common. See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukppa/1987/2/pdfs/ukppa_19870002_en.pdf for an example.
Could have been written by Trump...
It is the divide on the right stopping the Tories having a poll lead, this Labour government is already so useless many voters are already regretting removing the last Conservative government. Starmer's government is not Blair and New Labour which post 1997 really was a government that could near walk on water
(although, iirc and tbf, I think it placed him onto some standard senior civil service conditions)
One big difference would be that Chinese troops would not be expecting a welcome, as the Russians apparently were in Kyiv. The citizens of Taiwan are a mix of the descendants of Chaing Kai-Shek's army, which fled there when they lost, Chinese who for whatever reason have fled the mainland since, a few Chinese whose families have lived there for generations and the descendants of the original inhabitants who, AIUI, dislike the Chinese on principle.
Anything worth doing should be hard. If life is easy then you are doing it wrong.
A number of scenarios:
1) We see more MAGA to democracy defections as we had with MTG? People seeing the inevitability of that Bannon position decide to switch sides early for credit from the authorities once the prosecutions start
2) MAGA arrogantly assume they will win and do nothing. They lose. The prosecutions start.
3) MAGA huff and puff about Democrat lawmakers organising elections in red states being traitors, but allow the elections to go ahead. When they lose they try to declare the results void as the democrats are seditious traitors
4) MAGA declare the democrat lawmakers in red states to be seditious traitors, intercede legally against them, and then against broadcasters and fake news hacks who report on it. This creates unrest which allows MAGA to send in out of state troops to beat the shit out of people. This creates massive unrest allowing the suspension of elections in these red places. Other elections go ahead, Dem representatives terms expire with no election to replace them, MAGA has an absolute majority to pass Enabling Acts
5) Trump is brought down by an undeniable Epstein leak
6) Trump shats himself to death
Note that I have not included a scenario where the midterms proceed unimpeded and MAGA wins. When Bannon has already conceded, this doesn't feel as viable as any of the other scenarios.
So America, you Fascist now or what? We will find out in 2026.
LC is a good but slightly overzealous patriot and AAF is a scumbag
AAF is a good but slightly overzealous activist and LC is a scumbag
Both LC and AAF are appalling but for liberals free speech is free speech
Both LC and AAF are appalling and for liberals the rule of law means that speech can have consequences like prison and losing rights.
No doubt other sub groups exist. I am with the fourth group.
Blair was born in Scotland, wasn't he. Not that that's a guarantee.
As Shadow Home Secretary, did he come up with a legally defensible justification for deprivation of citizenship and deportation to be applied to Alaa Abdel Fattah ?
That notwithstanding, he seemed to have a vast lack of comprehension of Scotland. Turns out George Robertson wasn't the only 'Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead' numpty in New Labour.
'NEWLY released cabinet papers reveal that Tony Blair believed Labour’s devolution settlement had "lanced the boil of separatism" in Scotland and Wales.
In a 2004 cabinet discussion on extending powers to Wales, the then prime minister dismissed calls for full law-making authority for the Welsh Assembly, arguing there was “no appetite” in either Wales or Scotland for further devolution.
Blair claimed that Labour’s reforms had already “lanced the boil of separatism”.'
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25724241.tony-blair-believed-lanced-boil-separatism-scotland/
It is just a sad reflection on the current state of our politics and politicians.
It is no wonder the three old parties are leeching votes left and right,
Around here, "scum" is the dirt left in water after washing something. So, for example, the ring around a bath after it has been drained.
Equally I first met "slag" as the impurities that bubble to the top of steel in a blast furnace. *
* Nice slow-to-repair targets should the Ukes get around to them?
Nevertheless danger/opportunity is still a concurrence. I can share some of Simon Tisdall's optimism: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/28/donald-trump-legacy-maga-2026-tyrants
From the point of view of those in the cross hairs of Russian escalation, there is optimism that the hammering that Russia has received will lead to longer term weakness, and as Tisdall notes, humans are not very good at thinking about things beyond one lifetime, Xi Jinping is 72, Putin, 73, Trump, 79. The immediate context is obviously highly unstable, but there is a growing sense that all of these leaders are failures. I stand by my view that Trump has a very high chance of being politically crippled by the midterms and in any event I am sceptical that he will survive his term, so those betting that he will go for a third term are taking a very extreme risk. Xi clear faces a significant struggle to maintain control over the Party, and there is evidence that he will not maintain his grip for much longer. As for Putin, the disaster he has unleashed on his own country is making Russia unusually politically brittle, and his constant actions to avoid assassination do not speak of a triumphantly confident ruler. These old men cannot imagine that life will go on without them, but it will, and quite soon. We too can imagine life without them, and in all three cases, it is hard to consider that their replacements could be any worse.
As grim as things look today, the night is darkest just before the dawn. And I promise you, the dawn is coming.
I wouldn't be particularly pessimistic..
KrisPhilp@angrybrit257 - Just an ordinary dad who's had enough and won't take it anymore
"Guy's a fucking scumbag end of"
Personally I'd like to see this sort of commentary in public lead to loss of citizenship - but my more mature side realises this would be a very slippery slope indeed.
People are capable of change and shouldn't necessarily have past actions held against them in perpetuity. AAF has apologised for his tweets from ~10 years ago, so I am willing to give him a second chance and judge him on subsequent actions. LC has served her time and deserves a chance to demonstrate that she has learned from the experience.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/29/uk-accounting-remote-exams-ai-cheating-acca
I mention this not to laugh at PB's accountants or marvel at the rise of AI but to highlight this detail from the story: In 2022, EY agreed to pay a record $100m (£74m) to US regulators over claims that dozens of its employees cheated on an ethics exam...
This should be the first and possibly only question in the ethics exam: is it ethical to cheat in an ethics exam?
This subsided somewhat after the meeting itself, though perhaps it's still possible to see that an alternative locus of power is active in a way that hasn't happened since Xi consolidated his power.
Let me see if I can find a link to a useful summary.
https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/xi-jinping-retains-leadership-after-power-struggle
Award it to Trump next year. Again.
British government pays half to make United Passions II - The Hero Arrives. About FIFA & Trump.
Then at the premiere, get Trump to sign off on what we want.
Cheap at the price.
No-one's ever suggested I've got any Conservative sympathies. In fact, to do so is probably actionable.
I was thinking of reposting Leon's Wuhan Virology theories for political stimulus
His sister, does she live here, has tweeted in support of Hamas too.
LC is out on parole so is still serving her sentence. She said a stupid comment. With AAF he had a long track record of bigotry. I don’t know if she did or the comment was a one off. She’s not a hero. She also, as people keep forgetting, confessed her crime by pleading guilty. Reform makes an error platforming her.
Quite frankly this goes beyond him. It’s more a reflection of the charities who lobbied for him and the political class and celebs who supported him even knowing what was known about his social media commentary and he even had his nomination for an award withdrawn due to his anti semitism?
But we don't have to like everyone who is a British citizen to get along peaceably.
The Guardian article about his apology references an essay he had written addressing these tweets following the withdrawal of his nomination for that prize, so that suggests many of those who supported him felt he had apologised and disowned them already.