Best Of

I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.

You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .

That just isn't true.

For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.

Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia

For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.

It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.

You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.

Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.

If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.

Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.

The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.

The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.

They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.

The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.

And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.

And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.

The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.

A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.

Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.

I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.

I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.

People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).

It isn't just how much are we spending on defence, it is who are we spending it with. Contracts with the US and with US contractors should be the first thing to be binned. Trump imposes his tariffs - which he pays for. Instead of reciprocal tariffs we would pay for, void all the defence contracts...

'What do Britons think Europe should do if the USA seizes Greenland?

Accept it: 5%
Respond diplomatically only: 33%
Retaliate economically: 30%
Retaliate militarily: 14%'
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2013579809121607946?s=20

18% of Reform voters say accept it as do 8% of Tories and 38% of Reform voters say respond diplomatically only as do 46% of Tories.

44% of LDs and 40% of Labour voters and 28% of Greens back economic retaliation against the US, 26% of Green voters and 17% of Labour and 16% of LD voters back military retaliation against the US

https://x.com/YouGov/status/2013579811378082184?s=20

Retaliate militarily is bonkers. The key is to rapidly build up rest of Nato independent military capability which isn't listed as an option. Some form of economic retaliation is secondary.

Right, I now present the answer sheet everyone:

Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House?

20

Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate?

3

Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election?

55

Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election?

35

UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only).

Reform - 14 (assume we include polls reported earlier in Jan 2026)

Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC?

22


Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026?

9

The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026?

Sir Keir Starmer

Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026?

No

UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025).

140

UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).

1.3

Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup.

England

#competition

You're offering to share your prize with as many people as care to submit the same entries?

Yes. Just £50 a ticket to join me.

I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.

You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .

That just isn't true.

For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.

Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia

For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.

It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.

You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.

Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.

If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.

Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.

The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.

The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.

They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.

The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.

And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.

And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.

The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.

A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.

Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.

I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.

I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.

People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).

Military defence is of course only one side of the coin. We are so reliant on foreign, especially US, tech that our economy could be laid low without the need to deploy a single soldier. We desperately need to get on with disengaging our vital infrastructure from foreign dependency.

I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.

You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .

That just isn't true.

For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.

Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia

For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.

It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.

You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.

Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.

If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.

Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.

The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.

The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.

They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.

The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.

And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.

And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.

The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.

A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.

Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.

I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.

I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.

People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).

I dismiss it because the EU fund is being bogged down in the same petty arguments as any pan European defence project. Where do the jobs go, why should Germany bankroll the French defence industry. Why isn't Thales included in this part. Why is the UK getting any part of this fund. Why don't we just build the tanks in Germany instead.

Unless that stops no one will take the EU seriously on defence matters.

.

As the world is batshit crazy I was tempted not to bother. But lets do an outlier:

Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? -80 (elections suspended in zones under Martial Law)
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? -6 (elections suspended in states where seditious traitors were in charge of trying to rig the election)
Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 60
Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 31
UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). 14%
Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 17%
Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 17
The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Wes Streeting
Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? Yes
UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £145bn
UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025). 0.2%
Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. - no winner. Tournament collapses into chaos when ICE arrests players from Senegal and shoots the manager on live TV

Interesting but of course Trump cannot suspend elections without state governor and legislature consent and nor can he send in the National Guard without Congressional approval on the grounds of war or emergency

Trump can do anything he wants. State governors will be getting arrested as well. Traitors!

State governors can also call out the State National Guards, as I said Trump cannot call out the Federal National Guard without Congressional approval. State governors also control the state police, so they certainly won't be telling them to arrest themselves, it would need the FBI

At times you do seem to be naive

The evidence is that Trump will do whatever Trump wants

Well he can't, most US police are controlled by state governors, mayors and local sheriffs in the US NOT the President. States also have their own National Guards controlled by state governors and Congress has to approve the President deploying the Federal National Guard.

The FBI is also run by its own director accountable to Congress not just POTUS

Well he can't

Well, yes he can until such time he ceases to be POTUS

Go away and read some facts about the US law enforcement system before posting again please BigG.

The President does NOT control the US police, state governors and mayors and sheriffs do. The President does not even have full control of the FBI and Federal National Guard, Congress also has oversight as does the FBI Director.

The President does control the army but by that point if he sent in the army against half his nation the US would be headed for a second civil war anyway if Congress had not impeached and convicted him and removed him from office first (and Congress could cut off funds for the army too)

Read up on what he is doing in Minnesota.
The reality is that unless Congress exercises its oversight powers, which it is not now doing, then there isn't all that much that any but the biggest states can do to prevent, or even control the paramilitary organisation that is ICE.

You talk about the FBI not being under his control - and yet that organisation actively took control of the investigation of a homicide by an ICE agent, prevented state law enforcement from investigating (or even having access to evidence), and has now declared the investigation closed.

And there appears to be no way in federal law to bring a civil action against either the FBI or ICE o compel investigation.

What they have done is a clear civil rights breach (and therefore criminal under existing federal legislation), but there appears to be no avenue by which a case can be brought, without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice.

There is a slight difference between ICE actions taken against a woman they say was trying to run over one of their officials and Trump cancelling midterm elections without the say so of state governors who control their State national guards and state police.

Management of elections is also not an FBI issue

There is no difference. SA squads are marauding not only at will, they have been granted absolute immunity.

The states no longer have control of what goes on inside their borders. Trump is using Minnesota as the testbed, but the principle is very simple - the government has absolute control.

The government has declared various Dem officials to be seditious traitors and maintains that elections are fraudulent. It is perfectly rational to extend this reality to a place where the state officials are arrested and / or prevented by force from holding elections.

I don't predict these elections will be cancelled. They will say "suspended". Hold them in GOP areas, suspend them in areas full of traitors and insurrectionists. You then get a fully pliant congress where all of the dem seats have expired without an election to replace them. Congress then votes Trump to have extraordinary powers in this time of national emergency (the insurgency) and that is that.

What stops this? Trump is ill. But I doubt the regime would be willing to pack up and go to jail if he dies...

I don't think it's anywhere near as clearcut as that.
Note that Minneapolis is a pretty small city by US standards (which is probably why they're targeting it), so ICE has a disproportionate effect for the numbers deployed.

I've little doubt that you're right about the administration trying stuff on ahead the midterms, but it's far from a done deal, and there is significant pushback.

Any outcome between your nightmare scenario and a Democratic landslide is possible.