5 years hard labour ?

[Haliotis]

When a fanatical leader sets his/her mind to invade and take possession of a country, and subject its indigenous population to bottom of the pile people in their own country, diplomacy does not enter the equation.  The conqueror would see diplomacy as a weakness that could not be considered under any circumstances.  The result would be oppression, underground resistance, and brutal punishment by the invader.  And the countries now at war, or likely to start one, are run by “administrations” that are only too capable of, and prepared to, inflict terrible reprisals on the opposition.

Putin has his own agenda, and any diplomats who think they can deter him from his goal are fooling themselves.  He has more than once threatened to use nuclear weapons to maintain his stance.  The unknown factor is how far he can be pushed before that threat is used.

[Rhymes with Paris]

6 hours ago, Haliotis said:

I would say that Putin’s approach is very much the same.

Sorry Albert, I realise this is a serious subject for you and others 

But from your description of ambition for world domination , I just could not help but picture him on a remote island somewhere in the Baltic, surrounded by large steel doors and sliding rock hatches concealing missile silos.

Cradling an immaculately groomed white cat with green eyes, and squinting a bit.

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

When a fanatical leader sets his/her mind to invade and take possession of a country, and subject its indigenous population to bottom of the pile people in their own country, diplomacy does not enter the equation.  The conqueror would see diplomacy as a weakness that could not be considered under any circumstances.  The result would be oppression, underground resistance, and brutal punishment by the invader.  And the countries now at war, or likely to start one, are run by “administrations” that are only too capable of, and prepared to, inflict terrible reprisals on the opposition.

Putin has his own agenda, and any diplomats who think they can deter him from his goal are fooling themselves.  He has more than once threatened to use nuclear weapons to maintain his stance.  The unknown factor is how far he can be pushed before that threat is used.

You're right that diplomacy can feel almost pointless against leaders who are set on aggression, especially when they see it as weakness. But giving up on diplomacy entirely could be risky too, as it often leaves us with only military options, which might escalate things even further.

In Putin’s case, his nuclear threats are unsettling. But having diplomatic channels open means that we can still put pressure on him, build alliances, and hopefully keep a lid on things before they spiral. It’s not about expecting him to suddenly change his agenda; it’s more about setting boundaries and reducing risks. Diplomacy may not offer perfect solutions, but without it, the options for dealing with these situations could be even more dangerous. IMO Putin will not go the nuclear route as he is well aware the might of the west would leave Russia destroyed. 

He wants to remain in office so he's playing the long game,but history has proved how they all get toppled once they have served their purpose it's only at matter of time war or no war.🤨

.

[Haliotis]

With Hitler, diplomacy was a dead duck.  His defeated countries towed his line entirely, and failure meant torture and painful death.  He even executed his own generals if they failed to achieve his operational demands.   Where a dictator is unseated, there is always another waiting to take their place.  Since Man invented weapons of war there has always been a major conflict somewhere on our planet.

[Bper]

10 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

With Hitler, diplomacy was a dead duck.  His defeated countries towed his line entirely, and failure meant torture and painful death.  He even executed his own generals if they failed to achieve his operational demands.   Where a dictator is unseated, there is always another waiting to take their place.  Since Man invented weapons of war there has always been a major conflict somewhere on our planet.

You’re absolutely right that dictators like Hitler left no room for diplomacy. But since WWII, the world has changed a lot in how it deals with aggression. We’ve built institutions like the UN, NATO, and the EU to encourage cooperation and resolve conflicts before they get out of hand.

It’s not a perfect system, and we still see conflicts, but these alliances have helped prevent the kind of widespread devastation we saw in the early 20th century. The hope is that with these international partnerships, we can avoid repeating some of the darkest chapters in history. No one wants that ever again.👍

[Haliotis]

If countries don’t toe the line on defence spending, hasn’t Trump made threats to remove the US “umbrella of NATO cover?  Presumably the Trump administration would be advising the required spend?

[AndyN01]

As I posted earlier, Trump's rhetoric was about looking after America first and foremost - and he'd already made noises about NATO funding - so it's not a great surprise that's the stall he's setting out. I for one wouldn't want to call his bluff as what's happening in Europe isn't happening on American soil but might be seen as costing them money.

[Haliotis]

In the past, as history shows, America has taken a major role in settling the problems of other countries at war.  There is no doubt that, but for America, Hitler would have eventually crushed us.

We still have ties with America, but IMHO these are nowhere as solid as they used to be.  I don’t know if it was because of our membership of the EU, but the “brothers-in-arms” feeling between our two countries seems to have been lost.  The connections now seem to revolve around convenience more than anything.

[Bper]

28 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

In the past, as history shows, America has taken a major role in settling the problems of other countries at war.  There is no doubt that, but for America, Hitler would have eventually crushed us.

We still have ties with America, but IMHO these are nowhere as solid as they used to be.  I don’t know if it was because of our membership of the EU, but the “brothers-in-arms” feeling between our two countries seems to have been lost.  The connections now seem to revolve around convenience more than anything.

The UK and US don't seem to have that old 'brothers in arms feeling anymore. Back in WWII and the Cold War, shared sacrifices held them close, but over time, their paths have diverged. The UK's focus on Europe and the US's on Asia have each played a part, as has Brexit.

Today, while defense and intelligence ties remain strong, the relationship feels more practical it's more held together by shared interests rather than the deep bond we once knew.👍

[Bper]

Sadiq Khan plotted to charge motorist £2 a mile to drive in London in 2026 as a Pay-Per-Mile charge. It hasn't been confirmed that he will not introduce this.😡

 

[Haliotis]

16 minutes ago, Bper said:

Sadiq Khan plotted to charge motorist £2 a mile to drive in London in 2026 as a Pay-Per-Mile charge. It hasn't been confirmed that he will not introduce this.😡

 

How will he police it?  Cars would need to be fitted with meters that transmitted data to a central point from where charges could be issued.  And such meters would have to only be active within the specific zone.  Or area cameras be used for ANPR data to be collected, and how many cameras would this require to measure vehicle movement in the maze of London Streets?.  There would also be vehicles that moved into and out the zone during the course of a journey (delivery vehicles for example).  I cannot visualise the practical ability to set up such a system.

[Bper]

23 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

How will he police it?  Cars would need to be fitted with meters that transmitted data to a central point from where charges could be issued.  And such meters would have to only be active within the specific zone.  Or area cameras be used for ANPR data to be collected, and how many cameras would this require to measure vehicle movement in the maze of London Streets?.  There would also be vehicles that moved into and out the zone during the course of a journey (delivery vehicles for example).  I cannot visualise the practical ability to set up such a system.

Hi Albert, I suppose there are a few ways to introduce it, but one of the more cost effective approach would probably be to expand the existing ANPR camera network and stick with fixed zone charges.This would make the most of London’s current setup, so they wouldn’t need to invest in expensive new tech, like putting GPS trackers in every car. By charging a flat fee for entering certain areas, like Central London, it would keep things simple, lower the setup costs, and avoids the hassle of tracking every mile. No doubt Khans got it worked out already.😡

.

[Cyker]

SHHHHH Stop giving them ideas!!!!  

[Bper]

The average family’s council tax bill will go up by more than £100 in April, the Government has announced. Local authorities will be told they can put up the levy by as much as 5 per cent next year three times the rate of inflation, the Prime Minister’s press secretary confirmed.

Across England this year, the average Band D council tax bill stands at £2,171. The government’s decision means local authorities will be able to increase that by up to £109 next year.

For those in the most expensive Band H households, last year’s £4,342 bill will increase by £217. WTF. Who voted for them.🤬

 

The rise – which is three times the 1.7 per cent rate of inflation – comes despite Angela Rayner’s claim in September that council tax would not be increa

sing.

[AndyN01]

It matters not what they say....

It's what they do that tells the real story.

As has been suggested, all manifesto's should be legally binding. Although I'm not sure what the "penalty" for not keeping promises should be?

[Haliotis]

7 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

It matters not what they say....

It's what they do that tells the real story.

As has been suggested, all manifesto's should be legally binding. Although I'm not sure what the "penalty" for not keeping promises should be?

The Tower!

[Primus1]

The problem in keeping manifestos legally binding, things can, and often change, so what might be promised might not be a good idea in the future..

[Cyker]

I do think there should be some consequences - All the political parties have gotten too used to being able to make up any old horse **** to get in power only to renege on all the ones people voted them in for. That needs to stop. But the problem is the people making the rules are these same people! 

The other big problem is just all the flip-flopping - One side wants us to be a high-tax high-services country and the other wants us to be a low-tax low-services company, but the constant flip-flopping means we end up being increasingly a high-tax low-service country.

I wouldn't mind higher taxes if I see the benefits of them in a way that makes my life easier or saves me money, but while core services like schools, road maintenance, rubbish collection and the NHS are being flushed down the toilet they instead spend the money on mostly unhelpful things like ANPR cameras, Smart Motorways and my current pet peeve pointless and badly thought out Cycle Lanes.

I just found out they're digging up the side of a canal near me to run a cycle lane along it! I know this because in order to do this they've removed the central reservation on a humped back bridge that goes over said canal to make space for the construction crew to store their stuff on the side of the road, which has greatly increased congestion and will no doubt permanently damage the road surface because I don't see how they will be able to replace the central reservation and repair the road without closing down the whole bridge for months - It's already developed several very deep potholes because the surface we're driving over was never meant for vehicles. People already don't use the existing cycle lanes, so what's the cost-benefit analysis for spending multi-millions on another one, not to mention the damage to the local wildlife habitats that un-touch grass area was hosting...

[Bper]

58 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

The problem in keeping manifestos legally binding, things can, and often change, so what might be promised might not be a good idea in the future..

It's not just about a manifesto it's about the repeated lies that have been told to the public. Keir Starmer and his team have made promise after promise, yet every one of them has been broken. It’s becoming increasingly clear that they never had any intention of fulfilling those promises. Now, with the announcement of a £100 rise in council tax, we’re yet again seeing ordinary people hit hardest. This isn't just a broken promise it's part of a worrying pattern. When a government consistently lies to its people and fails to deliver on its commitments, it undermines trust and destabilises the very foundation of democracy. The public is paying the price for these failures, and if we don’t hold them accountable, it’s a dangerous path to complacency and even greater betrayal.😡

[Bper]

22 minutes ago, Cyker said:

I do think there should be some consequences - All the political parties have gotten too used to being able to make up any old horse **** to get in power only to renege on all the ones people voted them in for. That needs to stop. But the problem is the people making the rules are these same people! 

The other big problem is just all the flip-flopping - One side wants us to be a high-tax high-services country and the other wants us to be a low-tax low-services company, but the constant flip-flopping means we end up being increasingly a high-tax low-service country.

I wouldn't mind higher taxes if I see the benefits of them in a way that makes my life easier or saves me money, but while core services like schools, road maintenance, rubbish collection and the NHS are being flushed down the toilet they instead spend the money on mostly unhelpful things like ANPR cameras, Smart Motorways and my current pet peeve pointless and badly thought out Cycle Lanes.

I just found out they're digging up the side of a canal near me to run a cycle lane along it! I know this because in order to do this they've removed the central reservation on a humped back bridge that goes over said canal to make space for the construction crew to store their stuff on the side of the road, which has greatly increased congestion and will no doubt permanently damage the road surface because I don't see how they will be able to replace the central reservation and repair the road without closing down the whole bridge for months - It's already developed several very deep potholes because the surface we're driving over was never meant for vehicles. People already don't use the existing cycle lanes, so what's the cost-benefit analysis for spending multi-millions on another one, not to mention the damage to the local wildlife habitats that un-touch grass area was hosting...

it’s frustrating when political promises feel like they’re forgotten once the votes are counted, and it’s hard to see the benefits when taxes rise but essential services are neglected. It also doesn’t make sense to pour money into projects that don’t seem to align with the needs of the public, like cycle lanes when the current infrastructure is crumbling. There has to be a different way of governing this country this system doesn't work and its ruining lives and country.🤬

[Haliotis]

Cyker said, “People already don’t use existing cycle lanes…..”

The main road through our small town is barely wide enough for the buses to pass each other.  On one side there is a wide pavement divided into two - one for pedestrians and one for cyclists.  For some inexplicable reason, on the actual roadway at one point, there is a white painted cycle symbol. Regularly, cyclists ignore the cycle track and ride on the road.  This causes a backlog of traffic because it is just too dangerous for vehicles to try and pass such cyclists.  The concern is, one day some impatient driver will do just that, with the high risk of a serious accident, or worse, a death.

On the opposite side of the road there is a narrow pavement, which can be used by a mixture of teen age school children, either walking or riding bikes, as further along the road are the senior schools.  The walkers can be two or three abreast, with the one nearest the road walking on the actual kerbing.  Here, one slip could cause a loss of balance and pitch a person into the traffic.

[Primus1]

11 hours ago, Bper said:

It's not just about a manifesto it's about the repeated lies that have been told to the public. Keir Starmer and his team have made promise after promise, yet every one of them has been broken. It’s becoming increasingly clear that they never had any intention of fulfilling those promises. Now, with the announcement of a £100 rise in council tax, we’re yet again seeing ordinary people hit hardest. This isn't just a broken promise it's part of a worrying pattern. When a government consistently lies to its people and fails to deliver on its commitments, it undermines trust and destabilises the very foundation of democracy. The public is paying the price for these failures, and if we don’t hold them accountable, it’s a dangerous path to complacency and even greater betrayal.😡

The publicis paying the price for 14 years of unnecessary austerity..

[AndyN01]

I think the lack of truth/honesty/principles etc. etc. from "those in charge" has been lacking for significantly longer.

I'm always flabbergasted how everything is "fully funded" until "whoever" gets into power and then.... guess what..... somehow, it isn't. 😲

Hence my suggestion the infrastructure (i.e. big, expensive and long term) should be well away from politicians.

[First_Toyota]

2 hours ago, Primus1 said:

The publicis paying the price for 14 years of unnecessary austerity..

I’m aware that what I’m about to write may sound ‘defeatist.’ To some extent it is, but bare with me.

We all tend to look at things through the prism of our lifetime, especially our adult lifetime. That’s natural. The thing is, the reasons the U.K. is in the position it is now and has been for the last fifty years at least, run deeper and back farther into history.

I think of this country as a bit like a lower league football team that received some unexpected good fortune or investment and ended up in the Premier League. They then did well for a few seasons but couldn’t ultimately compete with the really big teams and their resources. Think of the U.K. as Watford, Wimbledon, Bournemouth or Wigan Athletic. Meanwhile China, India, the USA…they’re Manchester United, Liverpool, and Manchester City.

We are a small island that over achieved. Without our Empire and the resources that flowed into the country over two centuries, we would never have been able to achieve Premier League status. That means like a lot of football fans of smaller teams that do well and then fall back, our expectations are now unrealistic. 

We want to still be a ‘great power’ but we simply don’t have the resources to maintain that status any more. We pretend we can, we pretend it’s about ‘difficult choices’ but I feel it’s a fact. We all expect the NHS to receive more and more funding, to have ‘world class’ Armed Forces, councils that deliver the moon on a stick for us, fantastic free state schools…I could go on. We also look back, whether consciously or not, to the past and the great accomplishments of this country (and I’m not suggesting the Empire was either good or bad as the reality is somewhere in between when seen in the context of the times) and expect to compete at the top of the Premier League when the reality now is more like mid-table Championship.

To the point about austerity after the financial crisis, the situation goes far further back. Both World Wars and post-war reconstruction, especially after WW2, reduced our ability to really compete and do what we thought we ought to be able to do. Successive Governments could actually do little, as public perception wouldn’t have accepted that we should actually live within our means as we’d lived a champagne lifestyle for so many decades. Shocks like the financial crisis simply shone a bright light on how fragile our position was, and remains.

This isn’t a new thing. The enclosed is worth a watch, albeit twenty minutes long. This was the 1970s. Inflation, unexpected war and instability, poor public services, not enough houses being built, not enough council houses, young people not able to afford rents or deposits…sound familiar?  Life was getting worse then for much the same reasons as we consider it is still getting worse now.

 

Edited Thursday at 09:12 AM by First_Toyota
Spelling

[Bper]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

I think the lack of truth/honesty/principles etc. etc. from "those in charge" has been lacking for significantly longer.

I'm always flabbergasted how everything is "fully funded" until "whoever" gets into power and then.... guess what..... somehow, it isn't. 😲

Hence my suggestion the infrastructure (i.e. big, expensive and long term) should be well away from politicians.

Totally agree

 

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

I think the lack of truth/honesty/principles etc. etc. from "those in charge" has been lacking for significantly longer.

I'm always flabbergasted how everything is "fully funded" until "whoever" gets into power and then.... guess what..... somehow, it isn't. 😲

Hence my suggestion the infrastructure (i.e. big, expensive and long term) should be well away from politicians.

Totally agree,as infrastructure is fundamental to the operation of any economy, it should be managed independently of political influence. Appoint individuals who not only understand the importance of infrastructure but also have practical experience in relevant industries. A cross-party committee of financially independent accountants could oversee budgets, contracts, and ensure value for money. This committee would report to a minister who, in turn, could provide regular updates to the government and the public on progress.👍