Best Of

On Ukraine, I presume order of events is this.

Trump sends his demand to the UK and other members of NATO, as well as the EU. He tells them that unless they back it, the US will leave NATO (which Trump has always wanted to do).

The ball is then in Europe's court.

Europe can afford to tell the US to fuck off. They can also point out to the adminisrtation that it is US arms manufacturers who would pay the highest price for the disentegration of NATO.

I don't know what Europe will do. Hungary supports Russia, of course.

Poland and the Baltics are the most hawkish.

The rest of Europe ... well, we'll see. Europe has the ability to ensure Russia's defeat. But so long have they been prepared to hide behind the US's coattails, that they do not seem willing to confront the new reality.

They also know that Trump could well impose another round of tariffs on Europe if they fail to fall into lin.

I hope that the leaders of Europe - Mertz, Macron, Starmer and Meloni - have the balls to stand up and do what is not just right, but what is long term the one with the most positive outcome. The problem is that they want to be reelected. And their economies are already creaking.

We need someone in Europe with balls and vision and strength. Will that person arise, or will Europe fold?

Europe and Canada would agree to a ceasefire on current lines as would Zelensky but not Trump's initial proposals

Yes:

Europe and Zelenskyy would take:

- current lines
- no restrictions on armed forces
- ability to enter into alliances

Russia wants

- more Ukrainan territory
- Ukraine to be a puppet state

I hope Ukraine and Europe hold their nerves.

Actually, I hope Europe (and the UK) stops being reactive. It's time to announce something outrageous as the price for peace (Putin's resignation and prosecution for war crimes + all Ukrainian lands). And then it's time to take Russian assets that are frozen and use them to back up Ukraine to the hilt.

Just like the UK government and the economy you have to break the loop where all you are doing is reacting to the other party's moves and switch it round. So Ukraine needs to start affecting Russian energy exports and power generation, and Russia needs to be the one who is reacting.

Sadly, the West's politicians are either venal or weak.

"He used to say things like “Hitler was right”’: Farage faces more allegations of racist behaviour at school"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/19/nigel-farage-allegations-racist-behaviour-school

He was a shock jock at school nearly 40 years ago.

So what?

Comedy Nazi salutes and stuff like this was par for the course when I was at school.

Have you read the extent of the allegations? It's really hideous stuff that goes way beyond anything I ever saw at my secondary school. Mind you I didn't go to a private school, where standards of behaviour seem to be far worse than in the state sector.
What concerns me is that Farage seems unable to express any remorse or even acknowledge what happened. So either all these people are lying, or Farage did it but thinks he did nothing wrong. That speaks very poorly of his character.

Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."

A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.

It doesn't show anything of the sort.
Had we actually borrowed more to invest (rather than fund current spending), the return on investment over the last decade and a half would with absolute certainty been higher than the annual 0.5% it might have cost, and quite likely more than the current 4.5% or so.

Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."

A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.

So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.

I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.

Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?

On your latter point, IVF.

Given our low birthrate certainly not

IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.

If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.

It also makes a negligible contribution to our spending. We'd save a quid a year each if we stopped funding it.

This IVF thing is just silly. It represents 0.03% of the health budget.

Maybe we should have a look at obesity instead?

Fat chance.