Best Of

Daniel Hannan's tears are all too late.

He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.

Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.

Now here we are.

Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.

Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.

Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.

The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.

Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.

You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:

"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).

The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).

The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."

If the US spends just as much on welfare, and (as previously discussed) we know it's less efficient healthcare system means they spend just as much as us, then what are they not spending money on, given that they don't have higher taxes and they spend ~4.5% of GDP on defence?

Is it simply that they're able to borrow it?

Daniel Hannan's tears are all too late.

He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.

Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.

Now here we are.

Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.

Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.

Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.

The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.

You're a fool if you think Brexit didn't weaken Europe.
But whatever.

Is there much difference between 3/10 strength before Brexit and 2/10 after? Europe was weak before and is still weak after. We've underinvested in defence for decades, got bogged down in which country the 27 jobs that the pitiful spending would be located, cut regular military spending to the bone across the continent, kept cutting even after 2014 showed Putin was no paper tiger. We even dithered over renewing our nuclear deterrent for years before the idiot CND types were shouted down, I still remember the whole "subs but no nukes" nonsense being offered as a compromise.

So maybe technically you're right, Brexit weakened Europe but you're complaining that the park bench is burning while the whole forest around it has already been burned down. It's not and will never be a game changer. Trump gave us 8 years of notice to saddle up and cut welfare to increase defence spending and we ignored his warnings and now we're paying the price.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on tariffs: “The American government knows that we could respond from our side as well.

“I do not want that, but if it becomes necessary, we will of course protect our European interests—and also our German national interests.”

Merz: “The economy in the United States is not performing as well as the American government expected a year ago.

“In my assessment, this also has something to do with tariff policy.”

There was a report just today that Americans pay 96% of Trump's tariffs, and exporters are only paying 4% by adjusting their prices. This is one area where Starmer is right, there's no point harming UK consumers and businesses by reciprocating. We have to be much smarter than Trump when retaliating.

Paging @viewcode & @Taz and all my fellow geeks.

‘Blake’s 7’ Reboot In The Works From ‘The Last Of Us’ Director Peter Hoar & ‘A Good Girl’s Guide To Murder’ Exec Matthew Bouch

https://deadline.com/2026/01/blakes-7-reboot-peter-hoar-matthew-bouch-multitude-productions-1236682580/

They're right about the low-budget set. I recognised my hairdryer doing duty as a piece of hi-tech instrumentation.

Now the game isn't about attracting subscribers but getting them to remain - attached to the fact that the video version of a podcast both retains audiences (and gives you 2+ hours of watching a week) more than anything else - it's not surprising that the money for drama is slowly disappearing.

Finding series that can be produced on a few sets at a lower cost is the currently the main game in the TV industry.

That type of entertainment isn't my thing any longer, but I wonder whether they're also interested in repeat viewings, as when people buy boxed sets of series (or used to). I didn't realise it at the time, but apparently it had a kind of cult-following, which might make a reboot an attractive commercial prospect.

When we were talking about movies yesterday I pointed out that Sci-fi is created for the cinema as what sold before is likely to see again.

Blakes 7 is actually perfect for an experiment for exactly that reason, you can produce it fairly cheaply and name recognition will get enough people to watch the first episode that you can see if it works and whether word of mouth allows a bigger audience to be built.

Whether people watch it multiple times is unknown but I suspect Science Fiction is the sort of thing people may watch multiple times.

Evening all

It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.

As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.

The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.

There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.

But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.

When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%.
Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.

It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".

In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.

It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere.
Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.

I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.

That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.

If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.

Which is what I expect.

Andrew Neil
@afneil

Trump’s so-called ‘Board of Peace’ turns out to have nothing to do with Gaza after all.
It now looks like some kind of global conflict resolution body to replace the UN. It will cost £1bn to join and be chaired by Trump, who would have extensive powers, including a veto over decisions he doesn’t like.

It is probably his most radical step yet to replace the post-WW2 global order.

It will also be quite the dictators’ tea party. Putin, Lukashenko (Belarus tyrant) and the dictator of Kazakhstan have all been asked to join!!

https://x.com/afneil/status/2013291162618966066

Bored of Peace.
Time for conquest.

I came up with "Bored of peace" a few days ago