The outlook is bleak for so many and now we hear that Trump could be the POTUS and it makes one despair for the future
It looks like Sunak/ Hunt are about to deliver a tax raising budget that would just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
I notice that in Scotland Sturgeon is offering a 7% rise to NHS staff but taking the cost from NHS investment in services
The fact is there is only so much money and all governments will be forced into impossible choices
Cheer up Big_G, it's rarely as bad as we fear.
Btw raising tax is not an impossible choice. Unpalatable maybe but inevitable now. Covid + Ukraine have been bad luck, sure, but we just have to stump up and pay for it as a nation. And I suspect you and I can afford to pay a bit more than those on low wages and Universal Credit.
I agree and I feel for so many who must be living a nightmare
My wife and I know we are very fortunate and of course would pay more tax but actually cancelling the triple lock would be fairer even though we would be affected
"A second group of asylum seekers from the Manston immigration centre have said that they were abandoned at Victoria coach station by the Home Office and forced to sleep outside. The incident is alleged to have taken place less than 24 hours after the Home Office left 11 migrants in the coach station without accommodation or warm clothing. The Home Office denied that the asylum seekers involved in the first incident had been abandoned in error and claimed that accommodation for them had been organised." (£)
"A second group of asylum seekers from the Manston immigration centre have said that they were abandoned at Victoria coach station by the Home Office and forced to sleep outside. The incident is alleged to have taken place less than 24 hours after the Home Office left 11 migrants in the coach station without accommodation or warm clothing. The Home Office denied that the asylum seekers involved in the first incident had been abandoned in error and claimed that accommodation for them had been organised." (£)
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
I normally find your posts sensible and well argued David but you appear to be guilty of a bit of hyperbole with the "they have lost most of their fighter aircraft" claim.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
The air superiority issue is more about the strength of (both sides) air defences, rather than aircraft numbers or losses.
The real issue is how many of those planes are capable of flying. If it was more than a smallish percentage they would be flying now over Ukraine, or at least being used to fire missiles remotely. The Russian armed forces have Potemkin like qualities, worn down by corruption and incompetence to well below their paper strength. The Special Military Operation has exposed the reality.
I don't think anyone could have predicted the reality of how poor the equipment and training of the Russian Armed Forces has been. Its frankly astonishing, but what is more astonishing is that Putin did not seem to be aware of how bad the situation was.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
It's a strange kind of logic that goes: 1. We must defend democracy 2. Trump has won a democratic* election 3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
That’s the paradox I’m trying to tease out
A lot of Americans sincerely believe Trump is Evil Incarnate. I don’t go that far, but I can see why the Donald is feared and loathed
If the Devil is about to win an election, what do you do?
Get the hell out.
Of course, not all can and it makes winning easier.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
It's a strange kind of logic that goes: 1. We must defend democracy 2. Trump has won a democratic* election 3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
Criminals should be tried and convicted regardless of whether they win elections or not.
Sure. But if the criminal justice system fails to do that, then he should be free to stand and win (horrifying as that would be).
Once elected, the only route would be impeachment, right?
Which doesn't work.
Democracy isn't an absolute good, I cannot be doing with ill informed whining over that manipulative old crook Pericles. Hindenberg was democratically elected in 1932 and therefore empowered to appoint chancellors...
Its the Lib Dem figure that I don't get, with the tories in the 20s how are they in single figures?
Floating voters want the Tories out.
LDs lack visible politicians, would guess half the country might not be able to instantly recall the name of any current LD MP.
Policy wise, when the LDs come out with a policy, Labour adopt it a week later, the Tories spend three months saying what a terrible policy it is, then adopt it themselves.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
I normally find your posts sensible and well argued David but you appear to be guilty of a bit of hyperbole with the "they have lost most of their fighter aircraft" claim.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
The air superiority issue is more about the strength of (both sides) air defences, rather than aircraft numbers or losses.
The real issue is how many of those planes are capable of flying. If it was more than a smallish percentage they would be flying now over Ukraine, or at least being used to fire missiles remotely. The Russian armed forces have Potemkin like qualities, worn down by corruption and incompetence to well below their paper strength. The Special Military Operation has exposed the reality.
Also: modern combat plane (in fact, every post-60s plane) are part of an integrated system. A plane is no good unless it has the sensors, missiles, and other parts of the system. Russia has always been poor at the integration aspect of their weapons systems, and it reduces the combat effectiveness of their air force. With missile stocks probably (*) running low, combat effectiveness of their air force is massively reduced.
Which we have already seen. If their advantage un numbers is so great, then how come Russia has not had air superiority over Ukraine?
(*) I add this for those on here who start screeching "they're not running low!"
There seems to be a new variation on the hemline index which will be henceforth known as Rishi’s breeks. I expect him to be in hot pants by 2024 which should please at least one PBer.
I think it's perhaps just an Asian style ? South Koreans have just the same strange idea that oddly short suit trousers are fashionable, for example.
I see that Northern Poorhouse Rail has been cancelled again. Just a couple of weeks after it was reinstated.
Levelling up. Fat chance.
I am very sorry to be negative, but this Government is shit. Sunak is an empty suit, so powerless he cannot even decide whether or not he attends a conference. I'll snap out of it in due course.
The politics of the Ukraine war, in the USA, are very wierd.
The most unexpected people are for and against the war, for and against arming Ukraine, and a surprising number on all political sides can’t see it as anything but a US domestic spending issue. A surprising number also think the West should bow to nuclear blackmail, rather than stand up to the madman.
Very few commentators understand that most of the billions of dollars in military aid, has come from existing stocks at book values. The actual American money spent this year in Ukraine has been a tiny fraction of the numbers announced by Biden.
It’s not that strange. The Americans did not act immediately against Hitler’s aggression. It took nimble political footwork on the part of FDR to support us before Pearl Harbor.
Winston Churchill allegedly said the following:
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
I normally find your posts sensible and well argued David but you appear to be guilty of a bit of hyperbole with the "they have lost most of their fighter aircraft" claim.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
The air superiority issue is more about the strength of (both sides) air defences, rather than aircraft numbers or losses.
The real issue is how many of those planes are capable of flying. If it was more than a smallish percentage they would be flying now over Ukraine, or at least being used to fire missiles remotely. The Russian armed forces have Potemkin like qualities, worn down by corruption and incompetence to well below their paper strength. The Special Military Operation has exposed the reality.
It’s very true that we are looking at a paper bear, relying on mercenaries for soldiers, and on Iran and Belarus for weapons.
But, and it’s a very big but, they do still have a large pile of WMDs, and it only takes a few of these to turn the world upside-down.
I suspect that, when this war is over, the nuclear disarmament of Russia will be their price for being accepted back into the world under a new leader.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
I normally find your posts sensible and well argued David but you appear to be guilty of a bit of hyperbole with the "they have lost most of their fighter aircraft" claim.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
The air superiority issue is more about the strength of (both sides) air defences, rather than aircraft numbers or losses.
I'm not seeing 'several thousand' fighter aircraft even on the Wikipedia page. And it's an interesting question how many of what's listed there as 'active' are operational. (You could, of course, say much the same of most NATO airforces.)
The true numbers probably lie somewhere between the two sets of hyperbole.
The respective confirmed losses of aircraft for Ukraine and Russia are much closer in number than those for armour. What's fairly remarkable is that the UAF is still able to fly sorties.
Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.
This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,
1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.
2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.
3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.
4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
1. I don't believe a single word of what is coming out of the Home Office on this issue. If 70% of these people are succeeding in their asylum claims, that's a scandal in itself, and hardly surprising that asylum is a chosen route for so many. The Home Secretary doesn't seem to believe it either.
2. The evidence shows that increasing levels of wealth in developing countries leads to more economic migration away from them, not less, as smartphones and the internet open up new possibilities. Stability would be nice, but it's not within our gift. We'll do whatever the US decides; if that includes bombing AN other Middle Eastern country, that's what will happen. And it's maths.
3. Safe, legal routes, YES, but the application, processing, and validation of the asylum claim must be done in situ before they get on that safe legal route. Otherwise it's just inviting a stampede.
4. We want the people traffickers to stop because we want the people to stop. Your solution is like saying we should get the police to stab everyone on sight because it would put all the criminal stabbers out of business. It would, but all it would do is replace freelancers with a taxpayer funded service. What on earth would be the point.
70% of the applications they receive succeed.
An ex, years ago, worked in immigration law. She would listen to the case the applicant had, for free. She would only take the cases (both regular immigration and asylum claims) that she was certain would succeed. She had worked in the Immigration Service and knew from experience (and the law) which would work.
So she had an 100% success rate.
A simple variation on a previous proposal -
1) Massive fines for employees of illegal immigrants - half goes to the migrant giving evidence against the employer, together with indefinite leave to remain.
2) Introduce an early stage in the asylum process. If they haven't destroyed their documents, and the claim seems fairly reasonable, give a work permit. Crossing the Channel in a boat (or other illegal entry methods) debars you from this scheme. If you want to "reset" this status, you have to go to one of the proposed processing centres overseas, voluntarily. Back down the snake in the game of snakes and ladder.
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Might also give him the reason to appoint some new faces to the Supreme Court. As I understand it, he can do that.
In theory yes. In practice such attempts have historically not ended well.
I think he’ll also be wary of setting a precedent the Republicans might exploit later (although lack of precedent and indeed breach of precedent hasn’t stopped them in the recent past).
Stuffing courts, is one of those superficially-attractive short-term political wins, but opens Pandora’s Box in the medium to long term. A situation where every new President re-aligns the court, rather than these changes happening slowly over time, is very bad for continuity and politics.
Introducing a mandatory retirement age or a term limit, on the other hand, is a little more reasonable - even coming from an 80-year-old, who sat in the Senate for half a century before entering the WH!
Except that lifetime tenure for SC justices is written into the constitution.
There are actually decent reasons for increasing the size of both the Supreme Court and the federal courts in the tier below it, other than that it's constitutionally much easier, as they have failed to grow in line with either the US population or the amount of cases which come before them.
If they were to say “we need to add 4 let’s make it 2 Dem and 2 GOP” you could make that argument
“We need to add 4 Dems” won’t come across as anything other than partisan
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
I normally find your posts sensible and well argued David but you appear to be guilty of a bit of hyperbole with the "they have lost most of their fighter aircraft" claim.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
The air superiority issue is more about the strength of (both sides) air defences, rather than aircraft numbers or losses.
The real issue is how many of those planes are capable of flying. If it was more than a smallish percentage they would be flying now over Ukraine, or at least being used to fire missiles remotely. The Russian armed forces have Potemkin like qualities, worn down by corruption and incompetence to well below their paper strength. The Special Military Operation has exposed the reality.
I don't think anyone could have predicted the reality of how poor the equipment and training of the Russian Armed Forces has been. Its frankly astonishing, but what is more astonishing is that Putin did not seem to be aware of how bad the situation was.
A friend I worked with in the oil business did a very deep dive through the Soviet oil industry, post Cold War. He tracked through the reporting paperwork, the way that at each level, the lies became bigger. By the time stuff reached the Kremlin - he didn't get access to the very highest levels - it must have been complete fantasy.
A standard lie was saying that machines that were broken, scrapped or fictional were in tip top condition.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
The solution is a European defensive alliance that isn't part of the EU's silly CFSP and the Brussels machinery in its quest to become a superstate.
Set up a new European NATO and govern it through the EPU at intergovernmental level.
Ignoring the fact the EU exists is not viable policy. Europe doesn’t want to work that way and hasn’t done for years. European security is more important than trying to push an outdated view of how the continent might be organised.
As the strongest military power in Europe you’d think we would have some input into how it is structured
Prediction: the polls will be something like Lab 45%, Con 33% within a few weeks.
Yes, Rishi has taken them out of extinction level into landslide. His job will be to limit the damage from landslide to Labour minority. If literally everything goes his way he may even end up as largest party but in opposition. The talk of the Tory party going out of business is over though.
There seems to be a new variation on the hemline index which will be henceforth known as Rishi’s breeks. I expect him to be in hot pants by 2024 which should please at least one PBer.
Based on the somewhat awkward jaunty angle, did Jeremy Hunt give Rishi a wedgie and steal his tuck money? Those treasury sessions can be brutal.
He’s under pressure from the right?
Or he’s leaning right (depending on which way you look at it)
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
The latest Ipsos has D +1 Latest YouGov is Even Latest Morning Consult D+5
Some of these aren't Likely Voter polls, where Dems tend to do worse (eg latest Morning Consult Likely Voter poll is Even).
But not "all the polls" are pointing to a clear Republican win.
NB all figures taken from 538 listing, haven't double checked.
OK, so those are generic ballot polls - and aren't focused on the races in the swing districts or the likely voters - so I'm not too worried about those.
The 538 seat by seat forecast has 215 seats as solid or very likely for the Republicans, and they only need three more to win, with a further 11 leaning their way and 18 tossups.
90 times in 100 that will result in a Republican win.
It's the Senate I'm not confident about, not the House.
Comments
My wife and I know we are very fortunate and of course would pay more tax but actually cancelling the triple lock would be fairer even though we would be affected
"A second group of asylum seekers from the Manston immigration centre have said that they were abandoned at Victoria coach station by the Home Office and forced to sleep outside. The incident is alleged to have taken place less than 24 hours after the Home Office left 11 migrants in the coach station without accommodation or warm clothing. The Home Office denied that the asylum seekers involved in the first incident had been abandoned in error and claimed that accommodation for them had been organised." (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/second-group-of-migrants-abandoned-at-victoria-coach-station-6l0925jkl
Of course, not all can and it makes winning easier.
Democracy isn't an absolute good, I cannot be doing with ill informed whining over that manipulative old crook Pericles. Hindenberg was democratically elected in 1932 and therefore empowered to appoint chancellors...
LDs lack visible politicians, would guess half the country might not be able to instantly recall the name of any current LD MP.
Policy wise, when the LDs come out with a policy, Labour adopt it a week later, the Tories spend three months saying what a terrible policy it is, then adopt it themselves.
Which we have already seen. If their advantage un numbers is so great, then how come Russia has not had air superiority over Ukraine?
(*) I add this for those on here who start screeching "they're not running low!"
South Koreans have just the same strange idea that oddly short suit trousers are fashionable, for example.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/10/28/241295755/a-churchill-quote-that-u-s-politicians-will-never-surrender
But, and it’s a very big but, they do still have a large pile of WMDs, and it only takes a few of these to turn the world upside-down.
I suspect that, when this war is over, the nuclear disarmament of Russia will be their price for being accepted back into the world under a new leader.
And it's an interesting question how many of what's listed there as 'active' are operational. (You could, of course, say much the same of most NATO airforces.)
The true numbers probably lie somewhere between the two sets of hyperbole.
The respective confirmed losses of aircraft for Ukraine and Russia are much closer in number than those for armour. What's fairly remarkable is that the UAF is still able to fly sorties.
An ex, years ago, worked in immigration law. She would listen to the case the applicant had, for free. She would only take the cases (both regular immigration and asylum claims) that she was certain would succeed. She had worked in the Immigration Service and knew from experience (and the law) which would work.
So she had an 100% success rate.
A simple variation on a previous proposal -
1) Massive fines for employees of illegal immigrants - half goes to the migrant giving evidence against the employer, together with indefinite leave to remain.
2) Introduce an early stage in the asylum process. If they haven't destroyed their documents, and the claim seems fairly reasonable, give a work permit. Crossing the Channel in a boat (or other illegal entry methods) debars you from this scheme. If you want to "reset" this status, you have to go to one of the proposed processing centres overseas, voluntarily. Back down the snake in the game of snakes and ladder.
“We need to add 4 Dems” won’t come across as anything other than partisan
A standard lie was saying that machines that were broken, scrapped or fictional were in tip top condition.
Or he’s leaning right (depending on which way you look at it)
The 538 seat by seat forecast has 215 seats as solid or very likely for the Republicans, and they only need three more to win, with a further 11 leaning their way and 18 tossups.
90 times in 100 that will result in a Republican win.
It's the Senate I'm not confident about, not the House.
🔴 Rishi Sunak is expected to shelve plans to privatise Channel 4 amid a backlash against the move from within his own Cabinet https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/04/sunak-scrap-channel-4-privatisation-amid-tory-opposition/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1667560243-2