Recent posts

#21

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - November 20, 2025, 03:25:57 PM

I can see why people find the Right more comforting - no discussions or arguments in the open, gives you the illusion of things going swimmingly.

Nicest possible way - that's mad

My experience of the last Tory government was not peace and quiet on the right. But constant boiling rage, dissension and revolt as they had big rebellions that meant they weren't passing their core legislation, there were multiple votes of no confidence in their leaders and they burned through four leaders in eight years. And none of that was hidden. It was constant exhausting psychodrama briefed and counter-briefed all over the media - including (in fact particularly) in the Tory press (which makes sense - left wing papers have better sources in Labour, right wing papers have better sources in the Tories). It admittedly probably didn't help that for much of that time Labour was going through the exact same experience just without power

Having said that I think a fairly significant part of Labour's pitch was actually that they end that. Starmer's promise that he'd deliver politics "that treads more lightly in people's lives", "stability is the change" etc. As it turns out Labour has its own brand of psychodrama to offer. And it took six years of coalition government and two seismic referendums before the party had its nervous breakdown. All the problems Labour has it's having after eighteen months and having achieved nothing - which I think is a concern

Reading daily news that have standards yet craves controversy for clicks, like the Guardian, is very exhausting.

I sort of agree. I get we're not in a world like 1930 when the BBC could announce "There is no news today" and cut to a piano concert But for example I saw this today:

MoJ to remove right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in controversial overhaul

Exclusive: Courts minister says change needed to stop criminals opting for juries to delay cases, sometimes by years, and clear huge backlog

Which feels a little sensationalist, given as noted in the fifth paragraph, this is the government following recommendations from a review they commissioned by former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson. On the other hand I think it is fair given how the Guardian covered the last government which was always at a pitch of hysteria.

"Reeves is rumoured to be raising income tax, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"Reeves won't be raising the income tax, this is really bad according to a lot of people"

So on this - I don't think this is a media problem, I think this is a Reeves problem.

For two budgets now we have had six months of the Treasury kite-flying various taxes and spending cuts. I think it's a strategy from a weak chancellor to see what measures might provoke least trouble politically - as opposed to her doing her job.

But I think we've now had several cycles where Reeves' political operation is, I think, materially hurting growth. I saw Andy Haldane, former Chief Economist of the BofE say he thinks that there's "without a shadow of a doubt" a link between poor growth and all the pre-budget speculation. But you see it in charts on consumer and business confidence and spending: it tanked when Labour won an election and Reeves and Starmer toured the country saying "it's worse than we expected" (as had been pre-briefed before the election) prompting speculation there'd be austerity or tax cuts, you see it in the run up to the last budget and the run up to this one.

I'd add that I also think even on a purely policy level it's fairly mad. You can have different views on a wealth tax or an exit tax (both briefed as possibilities by Treasury sources in the last few months) - but I'd suggest whatever your view pre-briefing that sort of tax probably renders it significantly less effective.

"Labour isn't tackling immigration so Reform is surging, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"Labour is trying to address immigration, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"We don't build anything, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"Somebody almost built something, this is really bad according to a lot of people, luckily somebody else intervened in time"

On both of these - I've always said for the government to succeed they need to really upset a lot of the Guardian columnists.

I think there's the Nye Bevan line about power corrupting, but only opposition is comfortable - and sadly I think a lot of the soft left are still pretty comfortable (and I think the PM is probably in that group). Not yet confronting political or policy reality - again I think there are many echoes with the last government and right-wing columnists and similar swing of attitudes from appeasing to outraging them.

#22

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by HVC - November 20, 2025, 03:16:43 PM

You can be put to death for saying things? Talk about cancel culture.

Silly, cancel culture is only something liberals do.

#23

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by grumbler - November 20, 2025, 03:12:14 PM

IIRC back in the day in Sweden an order had to be obviously illegal for you not having to follow it.

The standard in the UCMJ is that an order must be presumed legal, and the burden of proof that it was illegal rests with the person charged with defying it.

Contrariwise, following an illegal order is only considered to be a crime if a reasonable person would have seen it to be illegal.

#24

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by The Brain - November 20, 2025, 03:05:48 PM

IIRC back in the day in Sweden an order had to be obviously illegal for you not having to follow it.

#25

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Valmy - November 20, 2025, 03:00:56 PM

Yeah. It can always get worse.

#26

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Jacob - November 20, 2025, 02:57:37 PM

Honestly, the way things are going, being ruled by AI doesn't sound much worse than what is already happening.

"It couldn't possibly get worse."

... it can

#27

Off the Record / Re: The EU thread

Last post by Valmy - November 20, 2025, 02:48:52 PM

Germany should check whether it can join the UK/Japan/Italy project instead.

Clearly the best way to come to a consensus is to have more parties.

#28

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Valmy - November 20, 2025, 02:44:19 PM

You can be put to death for saying things? Talk about cancel culture.

#29

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Syt - November 20, 2025, 02:38:47 PM

[Trump says Democrats' message to military is 'seditious behavior' punishable by death]

#30

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Syt - November 20, 2025, 02:37:04 PM

https://apnews.com/article/trump-military-traitors-sedition-illegal-orders-c5fc3c5bd2fbc6b1204550e4203c24b2

Trump says Democrats' message to military is 'seditious behavior' punishable by death

President Donald Trump on Thursday accused half a dozen Democratic lawmakers of sedition "punishable by DEATH" after the lawmakers — all veterans of the armed services and intelligence community — called on U.S. military members to uphold the Constitution and defy "illegal orders."

The 90-second video was first posted early Tuesday from Sen. Elissa Slotkin's X account. In it, the six lawmakers — Slotkin, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, and Reps. Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan — speak directly to U.S. service members, whom Slotkin acknowledges are "under enormous stress and pressure right now."

"The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution," Slotkin wrote in the X post.

Trump on Thursday reposted messages from others about the video, amplifying it with his own words. It marked another flashpoint in the political rhetoric that at times has been thematic in his administrations, as well as among some in his MAGA base. Some Democrats accused him of acting like a king and trying to distract from soon-to-be-released files about disgraced financier and sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein.

What Democrats said in the video

With pieces of dialogue spliced together from different members, the lawmakers introduce themselves and their background. They go on to say the Trump administration "is pitting our uniformed military against American citizens. They call for service members to "refuse illegal orders" and "stand up for our laws."

The lawmakers conclude the video by encouraging service members, "Don't give up the ship," a War of 1812-era phrase attributed to a U.S. Navy captain's dying command to his crew.

Although the lawmakers didn't mention specific circumstances in the video, its release comes as the Trump administration continues attempts at deployment of National Guard troops into U.S. cities for various roles, although some have been pulled back, and others held up in court.

Are U.S. troops allowed to disobey orders?

Troops, especially uniformed commanders, have a specific obligation to reject an order that's unlawful, if they make that determination.

However, while commanders have military lawyers on their staffs to consult with in helping make such a determination, rank-and-file troops who are tasked with carrying out those orders are rarely in a similar position.

Broad legal precedence holds that just following orders, colloquially known as the "Nuremberg defense" as it was used unsuccessfully by senior Nazi officials to justify their actions under Adolf Hitler, doesn't absolve troops.

However, the U.S. military legal code, known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice or UCMJ, will punish troops for failing to follow an order should it turn out to be lawful. Troops can be criminally charged with Article 90 of the UCMJ, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, and Article 92, failure to obey an order.

How Trump, others responded

On Thursday, Trump reposted to social media an article about the video, adding his own commentary that it was "really bad, and Dangerous to our Country."

"SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!!" Trump went on. "LOCK THEM UP???" He also called for the lawmakers' arrest and trial, adding in a separate post that it was "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH."

Democrats were swift to react to Trump's words, with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warning in a floor speech that the president was "lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline."

Speaker Mike Johnson said he did not believe Trump was calling for violence in the social media posts, saying Trump was merely "defining a crime," and calling the Democrats' video "wildly inappropriate."

"Think of the threat that is to our national security and what it means for our institution," Johnson added.

Trump's allies balked at the video. Wednesday on Fox News, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller called the messaging "insurrection — plainly, directly, without question" and said it represented "a general call for rebellion from the CIA and the armed services of the United States, by Democrat lawmakers."

On X, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth commented on the video Tuesday as "Stage 4 TDS," referring to "Trump Derangement Syndrome" — a term used by Trump to describe voters so angry and opposed to him that they are incapable of seeing any good in what he does.

The Steady State, which describes itself as "a network of 300+ national and homeland security experts standing for strong and principled policy, rule of law, and democracy," wrote in a Substack post on Thursday that the lawmakers' call was "only a restatement of what every officer and enlisted servicemember already knows: illegal orders can and should be refused. This is not a political opinion. It is doctrine."

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell challenged the theory that illegal orders were being issued.

"Our military follows orders, and our civilians give legal orders," Parnell told The Associated Press on Thursday. "We love the Constitution. These politicians are out of their minds."