Bijan Parsia

Contrariwise, this is obviously fine. Sharing truly defensive tech to third parties at risk is 100% vegan-kosher.

In this case, is the UK joining in with the war? Justly? If so the whole framework is broken because an aggressor can potentially launder some of their actions and co opt allies.

Oh well all this is perhaps quaint.

OK, self defense is legit. If someone attacked my neighbor and my neighbor attacked me as part of their strategy, I could defend myself from my neighbor for sure. But could I join with their aggressor? I have jus ad bellum but surely I can’t lend that to the aggressor.

I mean, I think the idea that the attacks using UK bases will somehow be narrowly targeted (do UK commanders have veto power?) is risible but ok. Grant THAT. How does this work? Taking out missle batteries is fungible. It helps the US war effort.

I am skeptical about this.

Grant the obvious: the US war is illegal (definitely ad bellum). Let us grant too that at least some of Iran’s responses are also illegal (in bello, eg indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets of no military value). How does this lead to helping the aggressor?

this one fucked me up so much. guy turns his life around after a drug conviction, becomes a happy, beloved, pet rescuing houseboat dad who undersells his mechanic services so poor folks can afford them. ICE grabs him one day out of the hospital for heart problems which then kill him. horrifying

This situation further compounds the misery of being a fixed-term/precarious academic. Why would universities hire an ECR if they can hire an established academic who has been made redundant?

It is right that our local Labour MP’s first priority is as she says.

However, I would hope that behind the scenes she’s also questioning why our government is allowing the US to use UK bases to make preemptive strikes on targets in Iran.

I do struggle to understand Shabana Mahmood: if this was what she came into politics to do, why was it the Labour Party that attracted her? Throughout most of the last 20 years, the Conservatives would've been a much more obvious fit.

If it's not, why's she doing it so zealously?

Christopher who? In May, a party founded eight years ago, with no record in national government and only eight MPs, will fight elections in Wales and Scotland, and for control of councils across England, with every chance of winning many of them. British politics is being reshaped by Reform UK. This is a result of Nigel Farage's personality and of Christopher Harborne's money - £9m, from a fortune amassed largely through cryptocurrency investments. The party would not be able to field candidates, run social media operations or door-to-door campaigns if it weren't for the Harborne war chest. There is a template for crypto-funded campaigning - in the US, where it is viewed as having led to securing crypto-friendly legislation and sweetheart deals to enrich crypto charlatans and undermine transparency and accountability in politics. Reform threatens to destroy the Conservatives as a party of government and divide communities, increasingly along ethnic lines and with overtly racist arguments. It also poses the most serious threat to Keir Starmer's government, Harborne lives in Thailand and owns a 12% stake in the Tether stablecoin. Little else is known about this intensely private man. Yet he can influence the course of politics, seemingly without either much of a business or life in the UK. It's a lot like overseas interference in British democracy. Didn't someone once say: "Take back control"?

From yesterday's Observer.

Being one bit of electoral bad luck away from a Trump like governemnt in the UK isn’t very comfortable.

So, I’m pessimistic.

I don’t think the disruption of the collapse of the two traditional major parties is likely good. Maybe we’ll see fragmentation on the far right but whether there are sensible coalitions to be formed is unclear.

What pulls the party back from the doom spiral? World events? Those look…unfavorable to be honest. The US is a huge problem and the Government has no plan at all except “try to judiciously suck up without getting conned or compromised” to which I say “ha”.

But who in government is going to replace or even bolster him!? It’s sad that Rayner had to resign over basically nothing (but good on her for doing so).

Burnham isn’t an MP and will be blocked from becoming one (another unhealthy sign…not just his being blocked but that it might have been wise)

The government has a huge majority. There’s time before the next election. But Starmer is not a charismatic figure along the lines of Johnson. Who’s the devoted Starmer lover?

They 100% are not listening to what their own traditional supporters are telling them. Not even a little. Starmer is not listening to his MPs (which was a big problem with Corbyn).

Theoretically this may be a recoverable situation.

Why? Why are they making tactically idiotic appointments like Mandalson? Why did they have to enlordify some of their cabinet picks. These are not signs of a healthy party ready to lead after time in opposition.

Their reaction to polls and by elections is *goofy*.

So now we get a government who while doing some good things seems to have decided that picking up some of the goofiest and nastiest reform-chasing Conservative policies is the key to everything.

Policies which are genuinely cruel and bad and economically stupid and they use Trumpist rhetoric.

They ignore the structural factors and think they have a way to a solid coalition.

This is bad, yeah? The Conservatives (and thus government) are all in on weird internal battles and so is the opposition!

Now we end up with Starmer’s campaign which is focused on vote efficiency and riding the Conservatives are extremely done wave without thinking clearly about it.

Aaaaannnnnd because he (successfully) defied the parliamentary VONC (contrary to tradition which would have not had him run again), Labour is all about the struggle between Corbynites and let’s call them the traditional wing of Labour. The more centrist part. And it gets ugly for a while.

Now Corbyn was rather a goofball too albeit in a different way. I think his Lexit impulses really made him fail to meet the moment in an ongoing way. Thus Labour was just irrelevant. We weren’t strongly against Brexit. We weren’t strongly for a soft Brexit. All action was inside the Conservatives.

Johnson fundamentally was a weirdo goofball uninterested in even the appearance of governance much less good governance. Again what distinguishes you from Farage once you accept that?

It’s also a broken party. Institutionally it is lost. Old stalwarts have left or been driven out. What ideals they used to have about union, rule of law, propriety, etc are all binned. They are not just nasty but *goofy* and unserious and if you want that Farage is right there.

The array on display was clearly not fit for purpose with Sunak actually being the most credible. But he did not hold the base. Truss was banana pants and the parliamentary party was not able to keep her on any sort of track. This is a tired party.

COVID was a wild card. No government who governed over a lockdown survived the subsequent election worldwide. Plus Johnson fucked it up every which way. Plus like Johnson sucked in predictable ways. Then we had the cavalcade of weird leadership contests and no GE.

2019…Johnson wins a huge margin in Parliament. It’s unambiguous. It’s what May was hoping for in 2017. Corbyn just failed. The get Brexit done vote was in. The red wall had crumbled.

Is Labour done?

Are they crashing out like the Conservatives?

Technically not yet but OMG the signs are not good.

I guess the Conservatives could make a comeback still but I’m more comfortable calling them done.

Preparing for disability regulation shouldn't mean waiting for disability regulation Deborah Johnston explains how the Disabled Student Commitment can help institutions prepare for emerging regulatory expectations Preparing for disability regulation shouldn't mean waiting for disability...

Last week on Wonkhe: Deborah Johnston explains how the Disabled Student Commitment can help institutions prepare for emerging regulatory expectations

I just cannot understand this at any level.