Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

But otherwise - no, I don't think you really get the understanding if you merely rely on other left-wing sources to intermediate for you want is happening online in right wing circles.

I agree that it would be somewhat limiting to "merely rely on other left-wing sources to intermediate" for me. I have a pretty reasonable set of inputs - mostly through personal relationship, but not always - that I know how to calibrate against and that over the years have given me what I believe to be reasonably accurate and varied context and understanding.

More to the point, I don't really care what is happening online right now in right wing circles. It is not something I can influence, and it's not something I wish to adjust my behaviour or attitudes in response to anymore than I wish to adjust based on what happens on what ever is the hot topic in any other sort of online circle whether it's video gamers, tik tok dancers, people with strong opinions about Israel and Palestine (of whatever flavour), or anything else.

And as to the effectiveness of my approach, I've been aware of the anti-15-minute-cities talking points - and the substance - on the radical right for probably a couple of years already. If it rises to the level where it looks like it'll start influencing things in my direct sphere more substantially, maybe I'll invest more there, but that's not right now.

In general, I don't find the return on investment from wading through social media cesspools - whatever their political alignment, and even if they're not that cesspool-like - to be a good use of my time or effort unless I have a very specific interest in the topic (i.e. I followed social media on Ukraine thoroughly for at least the first year after Russia attacked).

The same goes for radical left-wing sources as well.  Try checking out content from, say, Occupy Democrats.

While I'm well aware that US politics do spill over to Canadian and European politics, I've been working on dialing down my investment not up, so I think I'll pass if it's all the same to you

[Sheilbh]

Yeah the 15 minute city conspiracies are weird especially because they so often go from a global conspiracy to restrict and control the entire human population to "and that's why Oxford Council have installed bollards off the Cowley Road".

FWIW I follow a barrister on Twitter who is generally pretty centrist politically and, I think, normally pretty good on the law. He is an Oxford resident and is nowhere near these conspiracy theories but does very lengthy threads about how much of a nightmare the council is and how difficult it is to actually get around etc etc. The level of anger and frustration in Oxford seems higher than elsewhere so I can believe that there is particular issues/incompetence there that's driving the local opposition which is distinct from the conspiracy stuff.

I'm not sure on the whole LTNs. My understanding is that they tend to be popular with directly local residents but hated by people in the area around them (because they can no longer drive through). But I also think there's a problem since GPS. I've lived in relatively residential-ish areas of London 15+ years. It used to be that basically traffic broadly flowed on the main road and a couple of streets back from the main road would be relatively quiet - even if they ran in parallel. If you were a resident or local you might know where those back streets (mainly residential) went but otherwise you'd stick to the main roads. Since GPS and especially with the growth of Uber, Bolt etc I've lived on residential streets that have become very busy and congested because with GPS everyone knows to cut through those streets or that that one runs parallel to the main road but has fewer traffic lights etc. I think in some areas I've known it's actually pretty dangerous. I think LTNs can help with that but I'm not sure how much - and I get they can be contentious.

15 minute cities which is about increasing amenities seems different and absolutely fine/worth encouraging. But in  London context - there's always been saying that London is actually a collection of villages. I'd probably lean into that/"improving your neighbourhood" in terms of talking about those policies rather than "15 minute city" which I think originates in urban academic research and I don't think is clear what it means unless you read urbanism blogs/Twitter.

[Josquius]

Yep. I've been a bit involved with the various moves to set them up in Newcastle.
Its a common complaint that all they do is shift traffic from one street to another- basically always from small residential streets that were built long before the very idea of widespread car ownership and onto the local main road.
Which...well isn't that how its meant to work?

You're upset that you're getting extra traffic outside your home now?- I mean, you chose to rent somewhere on a main road. That's kind of like renting next to a nightclub and being upset about the noise.
Do a lot of journeys take longer with these changes? Yes. Lots of car journeys do. But again... lets not confuse the concept of the idiots in the council not predicting an obvious outcome with 'exactly as planned'. You don't want to go out of your way to make driving horrific but if a car journey takes 5 minutes extra then thats an acceptable decline to help make other methods more attractive.

Also annoying and dumb is that the opponents always try to tap into a populist classism angle. Trying to present the image that its only the rich streets getting traffic restrictions.
Which...
 1: So they recognise its a good thing and the issue is only the rich are getting it? Great. Problem solved. LTNs for all.
2: Its kind of true to an extent that these things only seem to appear in wealthy areas...but its other streets in the same area losing out that they whinge about so...not really.
3: Lets not mention that its a fact that its amongst the poorest that car ownership is at its lowest and people rely on other methods. Like, do they really think the bus is full of bankers?

Bt I also think there's a problem since GPS. I've lived in relatively residential-ish areas of London 15+ years. It used to be that basically traffic broadly flowed on the main road and a couple of streets back from the main road would be relatively quiet - even if they ran in parallel. If you were a resident or local you might know where those back streets (mainly residential) went but otherwise you'd stick to the main roads. Since GPS and especially with the growth of Uber, Bolt etc I've lived on residential streets that have become very busy and congested because with GPS everyone knows to cut through those streets or that that one runs parallel to the main road but has fewer traffic lights etc. I think in some areas I've known it's actually pretty dangerous. I think LTNs can help with that but I'm not sure how much - and I get they can be contentious.

Perhaps a key part. But I also think we shouldn't underrate the growth in car ownership. Its weird as I don't think of the time when I was a kid as such a different era in terms of cars but it really was. It used to be I'd play on the streets just fine. These days looking at the street where I grew up...sometimes 2 or 3 cars per home, often cars parked on the street as they're so big it'd be awkward to fit them on the drive and people are lazy....

15 minute cities which is about increasing amenities seems different and absolutely fine/worth encouraging. But in  London context - there's always been saying that London is actually a collection of villages. I'd probably lean into that/"improving your neighbourhood" in terms of talking about those policies rather than "15 minute city" which I think originates in urban academic research and I don't think is clear what it means unless you read urbanism blogs/Twitter.

On 15 minute cities and London...I'm not a big twitterer but on an occasional foray into that realm I ran across some really bizarre opposition. In part it seemed annoyed that 15 minutes was some lower limit and it would put facilities further away, in another way it seemed angry that if everyone has a shop 15 minutes walk away then it'd damage local high streets (which I can see some validity in perhaps in some places...but London?)

But otherwise - no, I don't think you really get the understanding if you merely rely on other left-wing sources to intermediate for you want is happening online in right wing circles.

It depends.
There's definitely a number out there who take a Fox News sort of approach, snipping a right wing politician's sentence of "I condemn Putin and his vile desire to kill civilians!" into "Kill civilians!" and trying to spin things from there.
But there are those who actively seek to examine the conspiracies flying around, give them straight, and then analyse.
I see this as kind of like getting a modern version of Mein Kampf with all the context and footnotes around it.

[Sheilbh]

Amid general mess - good to see Sunak in Kyiv, speaing to the Rada and announcing more spending for Ukraine in 2024 which I think will be a bigger amount of aid than in 2023 or 2022. The bit Ukrainians seem happiest about is that it includes the largest batch of combat drones Ukraine has yet received.

But also just very good that Labour are still committed to matching or increasing current support for Ukraine if they win. I think I saw the shadow Defence Secretary saying that while they backed this announcement, it should have happened sooner

Also not surprised to see them support government on the Red Sea and Yemen - but still a big shift from the last leadership.

[Jacob]

Humza Yusuf up in Scotland is not supporting the actions in the Red Sea. I don't know how well that'll play across Scotland...?

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that's right. He's basically just calling for parliament to be recalled:

He told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme: "Let there be no equivocation that the SNP align ourselves with the UN security resolution, which is essentially calling for the Houthi rebels to stop their attacks in the Red Sea.

"But of course the UK's record on military intervention, particularly in the Middle East, is not a good one.

"Before action was taken, the correct and appropriate thing to have done would have been to have recalled parliament, who have given serious detail about any proposed military action."

He added: "There are significant questions around the action taken. What is the end goal? What will be deemed as a success?"

He's called for parliament to be recalled, the government to make a statement and to explain the legal basis of the strike.

The SNP back the navy deployment there and being part of the international coalition. They are equivocating but everything I've seen from them has basically been procedural. In particular that parliament should have been recalled in advance of any strike and that it needs to be recalled now - eg from their foreign affairs spokesman:

Stewart McDonald MP
@StewartMcDonald
For me this is a key area of questioning we need to explore re: UK participation in strikes on Houthi targets. As a signatory to the EWIPA declaration - which I was pleased to take part in two years ago in Geneva - the UK has particular obligations to civilian protection. What are the civilian harm tracking mechanisms? What happens if the Port of Hudaydah becomes inoperable, for example? This is before we even get to the question of an exit strategy.

All of these questions - and many more - need to be put to the government. It's not acceptable that Parliament is reduced to spectator for 4 days after UK assets are engaged in military action.

But also:

Stewart McDonald MP
@StewartMcDonald
I support a ceasefire in Gaza. I've called for it publicly, I voted for it in parliament and would do so again. But the Houthis are not attacking international shipping out of solidarity with Palestinians or to advance a ceasefire in Gaza. Do not conflate the two.

I don't think it'll have much impact. Very few people vote on foreign policy and the SNP are in a bad way for normal domestic political reasons. But this is sort of their normal stance.

On foreign policy, the SNP's default stance is basically to be a protest party. I like Stewart McDonald a lot and he's made them more "realist" - he's also been very prominently pro-Ukraine since he was elected in 2015 so way before the current war. But I think they do still instinctively just say "not this" to whatever the British government did (whoever that may be).

They're definitely a party on a journey because I think their normal approach has been basically protest party oppportunism - they're opposed to the UK so will oppose UK government policy whatever it is in some way. Or distinguish themselves from it in a very minor way. For example here they're not yet criticising the substance but the process. Which makes sense as a separatist party - I think it was something the Lib Dems were guilty of too as the third party. But that's not necessarily going to work for a party of government or that aspires to run an independent Scotland - which is where I think McDonald's project has been moving them from their old anti-NATO etc stance to something that looks more plausible as the foreign policy of an independent Scotland.

[Sheilbh]

Hadn't mentioned the security agreement Sunak signed in Kyiv as I didn't think it really mattered - but it's been the focus of what Ukrainians have talked about so clearly matters to them.

And I get that he's very much a posturing chickenhawk, but feel like it's probably a good thing based on Dmitry Medvedev's response

Dmitry Medvedev
@MedvedevRussiaE
The British prime minister Rishi Sunak has arrived in Kiev to sign a "historic UK-Ukraine Agreement on Security Cooperation."

What would Western public say, if the British representatives happened to be bombarded with cluster ammunition in the centre of Kiev, just as was the case with our innocent civilians in Belgorod?

And I also hope that our archenemies, the impudent British understand that officially stationing their troops in Ukraine would mean declaration of war against our country.

[garbon]

Britain as an archenemy?

[Sheilbh]

Britain as an archenemy?

An impudent archenemy.

Mark Galeotti has talked about it and it's obviously mad but basically it is common currency in Russia (at least among elites) that Britain is Russia's oldest, most cunning and subtle enemy (so subtle we don't even realise it).

See also Russian state TV
https://x.com/francis_scarr/status/1744720915370549391

In a way I think it seems like a mirror image of some perceptions of Russia, which I think are also broadly false. It's like the Anglophobic version of the whole Russian hall of mirrors, secret Russian hands and intelligence agencies behind everything view that you sometimes get in the West. It feels a bit like how Russia is simultaneously seen as the origin of lots of conspiracy theories in the West (sometimes true, sometimes not) but also the most conspiracy-ridden society in the world.

Perhaps in a way it also reflects a Russian realism. Britain and Russia were foes as the two big Eurasian empires; then Russia was fighting the US in the realms of industrial production and the space race. Now they're back to a British level, a middle European power. But Russia grappling with the US would too obviously point out their decline.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Rather flattering to be called an Archenemy   

One thing to add which is public opinion, which is very anti-Russian here and has been for centuries (apart from overly intellectual lefties). The basic fact that Russia is ruled by nasty little dictators and has useless bureaucrats constantly making life worse for ordinary Russians has cut through to even the apolitical classes.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, "all them wheatfields and ballet in the evening".

Also I don't think the "romantic Russian soul", the vast expanse of the steppe and Russian writers has ever been a big thing in British culture in the way that I think it was in Germany or France. I suspect it's an effect of empire - we had India as the exotic orient to orientalise.

Edit: And I think that goes vice versa.

[Tamas]

Good point, the Brits had India for their "oh those fascinating exotic untermensch!" outlet, the continentals had Russia.

[garbon]

Britain as an archenemy?

An impudent archenemy.

Mark Galeotti has talked about it and it's obviously mad but basically it is common currency in Russia (at least among elites) that Britain is Russia's oldest, most cunning and subtle enemy (so subtle we don't even realise it).

See also Russian state TV
https://x.com/francis_scarr/status/1744720915370549391

In a way I think it seems like a mirror image of some perceptions of Russia, which I think are also broadly false. It's like the Anglophobic version of the whole Russian hall of mirrors, secret Russian hands and intelligence agencies behind everything view that you sometimes get in the West. It feels a bit like how Russia is simultaneously seen as the origin of lots of conspiracy theories in the West (sometimes true, sometimes not) but also the most conspiracy-ridden society in the world.

Perhaps in a way it also reflects a Russian realism. Britain and Russia were foes as the two big Eurasian empires; then Russia was fighting the US in the realms of industrial production and the space race. Now they're back to a British level, a middle European power. But Russia grappling with the US would too obviously point out their decline.

This is what I had pictured when I read it but sub UK and Russia respectively.

[Jacob]

Britain as an archenemy?

Sorry, the Cold War was just an aberration compared to the Great Game and the Crimean War etc

More seriously, I think Putin's clique are done with Communism, so the US' opposition is less significant. They figure they can make mutually agreeable deals.

[Jacob]

@Sheilbh - that's a good point too. Russia knows that if they go all in fighting the US, they'll be completely fucked. The UK is a safer arch-enemy, given Russian capabilities.

A clash of mostly faded empires...