So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
The Ukraine is in the situation it is in is because it traded it's nukes for words. We should take note.
Whether hanging onto it nukes was a practical possibility at the time is debatable. Though they could have restarted a nuclear program after that. It's in the situation it is because it trusted the word of France, Germany and the US to guarantee its security. Which is why nothing short of NATO membership is going to be the basis for a peace settlement.
Ukrainian nukes would have prevented the invasion no more than Russian nukes prevented the invasion of Kursk. It worries me that sensible people think nukes deter conventional attack, they only deter nuclear attack.
We (that is Western civilisation) need a strong nuclear AND conventional deterrence. Thank God for the Poles, they’re the only thing right now standing between a British mobilisation in the next decade.
Poland is in the process of building Europe's most powerful army. Very sensibly.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.
The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.
They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.
It's a bit hard to see the point of it. As a transition from empire it was not going to last. Country after country is re-appraising colonial history, and rarely in ways that PB Tories would like. Take the smash hit film RRR for example:
That does not mean that the 're-appraisal' is a more accurate rendition of history than the one favoured by the 'PB Tories' you dislike. Or a positive move for this country. Or even theirs.
Far too many lefties see everything that is wrong in the world as being our fault. It's a self-hatred that acknowledges all our sins, but ignores or diminishes any good we have done.
Sure. Revisionist history can be as bad as the hagiographic history that it tears down.
I am quite willing to accept the positives of British Imperialism, but simply not willing to ignore the massive crimes of empire too.
If we should be proud of what our ancestors did, should we also not be a bit of ashamed on their behalf too?
Indeed. But we see a lot of concentration on the shame and not on the pride. when, for instance, did you say anything positive about the Victorian age or the British Empire?
Too many people on the left see nationalism and imperialism as bad. When it is us, at least. They seem perfectly happy with Indian nationalism or Russian imperialism. I wouldn't necessarily put you in that camp, but it certainly explains many left and Labour figures. Corbyn, for one.
And the death of the Commonwealth will not leave a vacuum; it will be filled with other groupings such as BRICS. Which, whilst it is the country's choice, is not a good thing.
BRICS isn’t a think. It’s an acronym dreamt up by a Goldman Sachs analyst. It’s just an equivalent to the G7. Russia, China and India are rivals not allies
Err no. It’s a thing. They’re having their annual conference this week.
The one goal they have in common is to undermine the West and especially the US$.
Expect to see from them in future, things like sanctions on Russia lead to sanctions from China and India, as they all buy oil denominated in Yuan.
It’s a group of countries holding a conference, just common adversaries at the moment. It’s not like NATO or NAFTA or the EU with an intrinsic geopolitical logic
But you literally claimed it was just some acronym invented in the FT. Now you’ve been shown that they are actually having a BRICS conference - at which they have been discussing a BRICS payment system to circumvent SWIFT
BRICS was invented by an analyst to sell the concept of investing in emerging markets. It has logic from an economic analysis perspective.
But a group of countries holding a conference doesn’t make it a “thing”.
NATO is. Five Eyes. ASEAN. OPEC. G7. May be even G20 or G12+1…
These all have logic, a purpose and a rationale. The “BRICS” don’t like American and Western values. They aren’t a common group, just a bunch of thugs that aware hanging out together.
On the plus side, if this happens, SpaceX doesn't have to contend with his nonsense any more, and we get to see whether Tesla is anything but smoke and mirrors and badly assembled cars. It's too late for Twitter.
Had a lift in my mate's Tesla the other day and it rattled like a Model T Ford. They'd have done better using wallpaper paste.
Yougov has Truss as the only PM since Blair with a lower net poll rating than Starmer at this stage of his premiership. So I suspect Sir Keir is very grateful to Liz https://x.com/YouGov/status/1849441038030500073
Sir Keir is indeed very grateful to Liz, but more because she helped him win a very large majority a few months ago.
The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.
We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace
Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin
This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens
Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next
That's a poor argument. People with top secret security clearances do not get to call the head of state of adversaries without getting permission first. Any normal employee with such clearance would have the FBI investigating them and likely arresting them right now.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.
The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.
They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.
It's a bit hard to see the point of it. As a transition from empire it was not going to last. Country after country is re-appraising colonial history, and rarely in ways that PB Tories would like. Take the smash hit film RRR for example:
That does not mean that the 're-appraisal' is a more accurate rendition of history than the one favoured by the 'PB Tories' you dislike. Or a positive move for this country. Or even theirs.
Far too many lefties see everything that is wrong in the world as being our fault. It's a self-hatred that acknowledges all our sins, but ignores or diminishes any good we have done.
Sure. Revisionist history can be as bad as the hagiographic history that it tears down.
I am quite willing to accept the positives of British Imperialism, but simply not willing to ignore the massive crimes of empire too.
If we should be proud of what our ancestors did, should we also not be a bit of ashamed on their behalf too?
Indeed. But we see a lot of concentration on the shame and not on the pride. when, for instance, did you say anything positive about the Victorian age or the British Empire?
Too many people on the left see nationalism and imperialism as bad. When it is us, at least. They seem perfectly happy with Indian nationalism or Russian imperialism. I wouldn't necessarily put you in that camp, but it certainly explains many left and Labour figures. Corbyn, for one.
And the death of the Commonwealth will not leave a vacuum; it will be filled with other groupings such as BRICS. Which, whilst it is the country's choice, is not a good thing.
BRICS isn’t a think. It’s an acronym dreamt up by a Goldman Sachs analyst. It’s just an equivalent to the G7. Russia, China and India are rivals not allies
Err no. It’s a thing. They’re having their annual conference this week.
The one goal they have in common is to undermine the West and especially the US$.
Expect to see from them in future, things like sanctions on Russia lead to sanctions from China and India, as they all buy oil denominated in Yuan.
It’s a group of countries holding a conference, just common adversaries at the moment. It’s not like NATO or NAFTA or the EU with an intrinsic geopolitical logic
yet...
India and China are rivals. Russia is a supplicant that talks a big game. Brazil needs to fix its own mess.
Contrast with something like Five Eyes where there is a common heritage and close ties.
Russia's misbehaviour is a bit of a Godsend for China isn't it? Lets them be the bad guy, while giving China a nice submissive raw materials supplier.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Trump's definitely got his hispanic vote up. Miami-Dade now light red in early and mail voting.
Cuban voters are distinct from the broader Hispanic group with a much more republican tinge
Clinton carried the district in 2016, as did Biden in 2020. Desantis won Dade in 2022, and the early voting tea leaves indicate Trump has it this time.
The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.
We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace
Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin
This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens
Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next
You say 'peace'; if he's talking to Putin alone, then it'll be 'surrender' they're discussing. Ukrainian surrender, that is.
It's like Corbyn talking to the IRA etc in terms of 'peace', If you're talking to only one side, then you're not talking peace. You're talking their side. Worse, these publicity-seeking idiots who go about trying to negotiate 'peace' without the explicit or implicit say-so of their government often make matters worse by disrupting other negotiations.
A serious question. What would you do regarding Russia / Ukraine if you were in charge? Do you think the current “strategy” is a good one?
No, we should be providing more and better arms so this stalemate can be ended and so the Russian occupation can be ended. Then we might get peace. Currently people are dying needlessly on both sides and it would be a disaster to let Russia take Ukraine or even part of it. We should stop this half hearted support and put Putin back in his box. With any luck that might also have the result of Putin losing his power in Russia and Luckashenko being removed in Belarus and reverting to a democracy.
The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.
We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace
Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin
This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens
Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next
That's a poor argument. People with top secret security clearances do not get to call the head of state of adversaries without getting permission first. Any normal employee with such clearance would have the FBI investigating them and likely arresting them right now.
Yep, the idea that Elon Musk has been involved in quiet, behind the scenes diplomacy with Putin on behalf of a US government he viscerally loathes and is campaigning to remove is a touch far-fetched. But that is what MDS does to people, I guess.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
Trump is promising a global trade war on top of his appeasement of Putin.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.
The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.
They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.
It's a bit hard to see the point of it. As a transition from empire it was not going to last. Country after country is re-appraising colonial history, and rarely in ways that PB Tories would like. Take the smash hit film RRR for example:
That does not mean that the 're-appraisal' is a more accurate rendition of history than the one favoured by the 'PB Tories' you dislike. Or a positive move for this country. Or even theirs.
Far too many lefties see everything that is wrong in the world as being our fault. It's a self-hatred that acknowledges all our sins, but ignores or diminishes any good we have done.
Sure. Revisionist history can be as bad as the hagiographic history that it tears down.
I am quite willing to accept the positives of British Imperialism, but simply not willing to ignore the massive crimes of empire too.
If we should be proud of what our ancestors did, should we also not be a bit of ashamed on their behalf too?
Indeed. But we see a lot of concentration on the shame and not on the pride. when, for instance, did you say anything positive about the Victorian age or the British Empire?
Too many people on the left see nationalism and imperialism as bad. When it is us, at least. They seem perfectly happy with Indian nationalism or Russian imperialism. I wouldn't necessarily put you in that camp, but it certainly explains many left and Labour figures. Corbyn, for one.
And the death of the Commonwealth will not leave a vacuum; it will be filled with other groupings such as BRICS. Which, whilst it is the country's choice, is not a good thing.
BRICS isn’t a think. It’s an acronym dreamt up by a Goldman Sachs analyst. It’s just an equivalent to the G7. Russia, China and India are rivals not allies
Err no. It’s a thing. They’re having their annual conference this week.
The one goal they have in common is to undermine the West and especially the US$.
Expect to see from them in future, things like sanctions on Russia lead to sanctions from China and India, as they all buy oil denominated in Yuan.
It’s a group of countries holding a conference, just common adversaries at the moment. It’s not like NATO or NAFTA or the EU with an intrinsic geopolitical logic
But you literally claimed it was just some acronym invented in the FT. Now you’ve been shown that they are actually having a BRICS conference - at which they have been discussing a BRICS payment system to circumvent SWIFT
BRICS was invented by an analyst to sell the concept of investing in emerging markets. It has logic from an economic analysis perspective.
But a group of countries holding a conference doesn’t make it a “thing”.
NATO is. Five Eyes. ASEAN. OPEC. G7. May be even G20 or G12+1…
These all have logic, a purpose and a rationale. The “BRICS” don’t like American and Western values. They aren’t a common group, just a bunch of thugs that aware hanging out together.
It may have started off as an acronym from some analyst’s desk, but it’s now a fully-fledged grouping of developing countries looking to undermine the current World order.
That just met in Russia of all places. The most significant agreement being to work on a currency - which could end up being another Bitcoin, but could also end up being the new Euro, transferring much of the World’s financial power to this grouping.
..if anyone cares! Whomever of these two lightweights wins, those of us of a sensible centre-right persuasion can but hope that they are replaced with someone much better by the next GE
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
I think we should correct the failures of the past by providing the support to Ukraine that we previously failed to provide.
Not least of which would be to provide funding for Ukraine's domestic drone industry, which could provide the weapons to defeat Russia while minimising Ukrainian casualties.
Trump would make the situation more dangerous by providing less support. That's kinda obvious.
The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.
We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace
Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin
This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens
Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next
You say 'peace'; if he's talking to Putin alone, then it'll be 'surrender' they're discussing. Ukrainian surrender, that is.
It's like Corbyn talking to the IRA etc in terms of 'peace', If you're talking to only one side, then you're not talking peace. You're talking their side. Worse, these publicity-seeking idiots who go about trying to negotiate 'peace' without the explicit or implicit say-so of their government often make matters worse by disrupting other negotiations.
A serious question. What would you do regarding Russia / Ukraine if you were in charge? Do you think the current “strategy” is a good one?
No, we should be providing more and better arms so this stalemate can be ended and so the Russian occupation can be ended. Then we might get peace. Currently people are dying needlessly on both sides and it would be a disaster to let Russia take Ukraine or even part of it. We should stop this half hearted support and put Putin back in his box. With any luck that might also have the result of Putin losing his power in Russia and Luckashenko being removed in Belarus and reverting to a democracy.
Isn't there an issue about numbers of men, though? Which is why the Russians are resorting to all sorts of methods to increase their manpower, which the Ukrainians are largely 'restricted' to local men. How long before Kyiv has to start calling up women?
Ooh. Just been offered a trip to Svalbard…. IN WINTER
Has anyone been? That’s gonna be COLD - but interesting
Don't be eaten by a polar bear.
It might not be that cold.
Svalbard in winter will be very cold! And you will (I think) legally be required to be accompanied by someone who is licenced in how to use a bear stopping rifle.
..if anyone cares! Whomever of these two lightweights wins, those of us of a sensible centre-right persuasion can but hope that they are replaced with someone much better by the next GE
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020.
Though yes had Haley been picked by Republican voters as GOP nominee she would be heading for a clear victory, more acceptable to Independents and Democrats than Trump and Ukraine would be assured of her strong support.
Ooh. Just been offered a trip to Svalbard…. IN WINTER
Has anyone been? That’s gonna be COLD - but interesting
Don't be eaten by a polar bear.
It might not be that cold.
Svalbard in winter will be very cold! And you will (I think) legally be required to be accompanied by someone who is licenced in how to use a bear stopping rifle.
1. It didn’t happen. 2. Whatever happened wasn’t a big deal. 3. Someone else did it. 4. Whatever happened isn’t illegal. 5. The President can’t be liable for whatever happened. 6. Obama did it too. 7. Who cares if the President did it & it’s illegal? 8. ?
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022. So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.
I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020.
Though yes had Haley been picked by Republican voters as GOP nominee she would be heading for a clear victory, more acceptable to Independents and Democrats than Trump and Ukraine would be assured of her strong support.
Are you expecting/hoping for a Trump win next month?
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020
My point was that both candidates are and were the worst, leaving 300m Americans the choice of Alien or Predator. For three elections running.
Another Reagan or Obama would get a 50-state result today.
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
The Ukraine is in the situation it is in is because it traded it's nukes for words. We should take note.
Whether hanging onto it nukes was a practical possibility at the time is debatable. Though they could have restarted a nuclear program after that. It's in the situation it is because it trusted the word of France, Germany and the US to guarantee its security. Which is why nothing short of NATO membership is going to be the basis for a peace settlement.
Ukrainian nukes would have prevented the invasion no more than Russian nukes prevented the invasion of Kursk. It worries me that sensible people think nukes deter conventional attack, they only deter nuclear attack.
We (that is Western civilisation) need a strong nuclear AND conventional deterrence. Thank God for the Poles, they’re the only thing right now standing between a British mobilisation in the next decade.
They prevent existential attacks. Putin was aiming to take over the whole country. And kill the existing leadership. If you are dead, anyway, why not launch?
Ooh. Just been offered a trip to Svalbard…. IN WINTER
Has anyone been? That’s gonna be COLD - but interesting
Don't be eaten by a polar bear.
It might not be that cold.
Svalbard in winter will be very cold! And you will (I think) legally be required to be accompanied by someone who is licenced in how to use a bear stopping rifle.
It'll be dark, too. 24/24
My recommendation is to go in summer for that reason. Norway above and below the arctic circle in summer is fabulous
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
The Ukraine is in the situation it is in is because it traded it's nukes for words. We should take note.
Whether hanging onto it nukes was a practical possibility at the time is debatable. Though they could have restarted a nuclear program after that. It's in the situation it is because it trusted the word of France, Germany and the US to guarantee its security. Which is why nothing short of NATO membership is going to be the basis for a peace settlement.
Ukrainian nukes would have prevented the invasion no more than Russian nukes prevented the invasion of Kursk. It worries me that sensible people think nukes deter conventional attack, they only deter nuclear attack.
We (that is Western civilisation) need a strong nuclear AND conventional deterrence. Thank God for the Poles, they’re the only thing right now standing between a British mobilisation in the next decade.
Poland is in the process of building Europe's most powerful army. Very sensibly.
Trump's definitely got his hispanic vote up. Miami-Dade now light red in early and mail voting.
Cuban voters are distinct from the broader Hispanic group with a much more republican tinge
Clinton carried the district in 2016, as did Biden in 2020. Desantis won Dade in 2022, and the early voting tea leaves indicate Trump has it this time.
It would be another big swing to the GOP but its not where Trump needs to gain votes.
Friday morning sitrep: I was waiting for 25 minutes on hold to a call centre, getting thoroughly fed up and also needing a poo. Bit of a dilemma which I'm sure you've all experienced. I decided to risk it. Right on the moment of the plop, the holding music stops and the person at the other end says "hi, how can I help?"
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Ooh. Just been offered a trip to Svalbard…. IN WINTER
Has anyone been? That’s gonna be COLD - but interesting
Don't be eaten by a polar bear.
It might not be that cold.
Svalbard in winter will be very cold! And you will (I think) legally be required to be accompanied by someone who is licenced in how to use a bear stopping rifle.
It'll be dark, too. 24/24
My recommendation is to go in summer for that reason. Norway above and below the arctic circle in summer is fabulous
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022. So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.
I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
Side-tracking a bit, I know, but if North Korea commits much/most of it's army to the Ukraine War, doesn't leave an opportunity for South Korea? And would China come to the North's aid as in the early '50's?
Western Australia lost their last eight wickets for just one run in an extraordinary collapse against Tasmania in Australia's domestic 50-over competition.
The three-time defending champions reached 52-2 but were bowled out for 53 amid a flurry of wickets on a bouncy, green pitch in Perth.
The one run added came from a wide, with numbers five to 10 in the batting order all dismissed for ducks.
Tasmania seamer Beau Webster took 6-17 and fast bowler Billy Stanlake 3-12. Tasmania chased their target in 8.3 overs for a seven-wicket win.
The collapse was made more remarkable by the fact all 11 of Western Australia's XI were Australia internationals.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022. So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.
I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
The only way it end is with security guarantees for Ukraine (ie NATO membership) - otherwise it's just a pause. And Putin won't accept that.
Western Australia lost their last eight wickets for just one run in an extraordinary collapse against Tasmania in Australia's domestic 50-over competition.
The three-time defending champions reached 52-2 but were bowled out for 53 amid a flurry of wickets on a bouncy, green pitch in Perth.
The one run added came from a wide, with numbers five to 10 in the batting order all dismissed for ducks.
Tasmania seamer Beau Webster took 6-17 and fast bowler Billy Stanlake 3-12. Tasmania chased their target in 8.3 overs for a seven-wicket win.
The collapse was made more remarkable by the fact all 11 of Western Australia's XI were Australia internationals.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020.
Though yes had Haley been picked by Republican voters as GOP nominee she would be heading for a clear victory, more acceptable to Independents and Democrats than Trump and Ukraine would be assured of her strong support.
Are you expecting/hoping for a Trump win next month?
I suppose I am reluctantly hoping for a Harris win and GOP Congress, though would have preferred Haley. I think it will be close and Trump could even win the popular vote but lose the EC
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020
My point was that both candidates are and were the worst, leaving 300m Americans the choice of Alien or Predator. For three elections running.
Another Reagan or Obama would get a 50-state result today.
They are not the worst.
Trump is utterly appalling - but there are worst creatures than him in the US. See Project 2025 for details.
Harris is OK. She just isn't a first rank, Big Beast politician at national level. She would be a better president than a long list of the no hopers who've filled that spot.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.
We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace
Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin
This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens
Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next
You say 'peace'; if he's talking to Putin alone, then it'll be 'surrender' they're discussing. Ukrainian surrender, that is.
It's like Corbyn talking to the IRA etc in terms of 'peace', If you're talking to only one side, then you're not talking peace. You're talking their side. Worse, these publicity-seeking idiots who go about trying to negotiate 'peace' without the explicit or implicit say-so of their government often make matters worse by disrupting other negotiations.
A serious question. What would you do regarding Russia / Ukraine if you were in charge? Do you think the current “strategy” is a good one?
No, we should be providing more and better arms so this stalemate can be ended and so the Russian occupation can be ended. Then we might get peace. Currently people are dying needlessly on both sides and it would be a disaster to let Russia take Ukraine or even part of it. We should stop this half hearted support and put Putin back in his box. With any luck that might also have the result of Putin losing his power in Russia and Luckashenko being removed in Belarus and reverting to a democracy.
Escalation is rarely a good idea, and escalation in the cause of maintaining boundaries probably against the wishes of current residents is a terrible idea. There's a difficult discussion to be had about who gets to decide in areas where the supporters of one side have mostly fled, but common sense suggests that a shift in the border to accommodate pro-Russian residents coupled with NATO membership for the Ukrainian majority would be grudgingly accepted by both sides. Regardless, some creative exploration of options would be better than endless conflict.
Anti-trans ads are now the number one TV topic for the Trump campaign. The economy is number 5.
As Marc notes: It "could either reset culture war politics for years to come in presidential races or, if Trump loses, go down as a major, even historic, tactical blunder." https://x.com/samstein/status/1849473156378984753
Western Australia lost their last eight wickets for just one run in an extraordinary collapse against Tasmania in Australia's domestic 50-over competition.
The three-time defending champions reached 52-2 but were bowled out for 53 amid a flurry of wickets on a bouncy, green pitch in Perth.
The one run added came from a wide, with numbers five to 10 in the batting order all dismissed for ducks.
Tasmania seamer Beau Webster took 6-17 and fast bowler Billy Stanlake 3-12. Tasmania chased their target in 8.3 overs for a seven-wicket win.
The collapse was made more remarkable by the fact all 11 of Western Australia's XI were Australia internationals.
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022. So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.
I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
Side-tracking a bit, I know, but if North Korea commits much/most of it's army to the Ukraine War, doesn't leave an opportunity for South Korea? And would China come to the North's aid as in the early '50's?
PRK’s army is more than 2m strong. Its population is +20m. And there are hundreds of thousands of missiles aimed at Seoul. If they enter the war in any serious way (and that now looks frighteningly possible), the risk to us all is clear.
Some good analysts (eg Jake Broe) are scoffing at this as US election interference, the 10k infantry only fills 2 weeks of Russian losses etc… but I think that rather neglects how things might develop, given there has been exactly zero consequence to Kim for directly entering the conflict.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020
My point was that both candidates are and were the worst, leaving 300m Americans the choice of Alien or Predator. For three elections running.
Another Reagan or Obama would get a 50-state result today.
They are not the worst.
Trump is utterly appalling - but there are worst creatures than him in the US. See Project 2025 for details.
Harris is OK. She just isn't a first rank, Big Beast politician at national level. She would be a better president than a long list of the no hopers who've filled that spot.
When was there a better choice?
Trump 2024 is worse than Trump 2020 is worse than Trump 2016.
Harris 2024 is worse than Biden 2020 is worse than H. Clinton 2016.
IMHO Harris is a totally empty suit, same as Starmer. She stands for nothing except gaining power and can’t articulate the most basic ideas of policy.
Western Australia lost their last eight wickets for just one run in an extraordinary collapse against Tasmania in Australia's domestic 50-over competition.
The three-time defending champions reached 52-2 but were bowled out for 53 amid a flurry of wickets on a bouncy, green pitch in Perth.
The one run added came from a wide, with numbers five to 10 in the batting order all dismissed for ducks.
Tasmania seamer Beau Webster took 6-17 and fast bowler Billy Stanlake 3-12. Tasmania chased their target in 8.3 overs for a seven-wicket win.
The collapse was made more remarkable by the fact all 11 of Western Australia's XI were Australia internationals.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.
And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.
The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.
They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.
If anything the Commonwealth is needed more than enough to contain Chinese influence in the developing world and foster cultural exchange and development links in English speaking nations with common law and Westminster style democracy.
Don't forget either India, the biggest Commonwealth nation does not have a great relationship with China as they have border disputes with each other even if Modi is neutral on Putin (and Modi failed to get the landslide win he was hoping for in the Indian election a few months ago)
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...
Tariffs
For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.
Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
On a nominal basis though the G7 nations are still bigger. Both the G7 and BRICs nations are in the G20 of course which is the true global forum now for the big economies, the G7 mainly now a group of the largest developed nations which are liberal democracies (though Trump if he wins might also prefer to deal with the BRICs)
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.
And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.
And in the USA its easy to get a gun.
Aside from anything else, the SC justices are already considered to be under massive level of threat.
The Truss episode seems ever more surreal in hindsight, conclusive proof that the Tory hegemony was coming to an end. It is worse than the 45 days that she survived as PM. The Tory membership listened to that bat shit insanity over months and thought, "yes, we'll have some of that." Conclusive proof that they were not fit to govern.
I feel a bit sorry for Sunak. If the Conservative party membership had chosen him instead I think his Premiership would have been different but it was constantly overshadowed by the Truss fiasco. And now the members are being given another second or even third rate choice. The future existence of the Tories as a major player in UK politics is by no means assured.
Yawn. Zero analysis, just asinine repetition of Labour talking points.
Labour might save the Tories from themselves.
They are doing everything possible to encourage a rapid revival.
An optimist thinks no government could be worse than the last one.
A pessimist knows that it can.
Actually, that's the exact argument we heard before the election, which some of us warned against: "Oh, they couldn't be any worse than this lot."
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.
And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.
And in the USA its easy to get a gun.
Aside from anything else, the SC justices are already considered to be under massive level of threat.
Indeed they are.
But would they want that threat to be x100 or x1000 ?
The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.
We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace
Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin
This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens
Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next
You say 'peace'; if he's talking to Putin alone, then it'll be 'surrender' they're discussing. Ukrainian surrender, that is.
It's like Corbyn talking to the IRA etc in terms of 'peace', If you're talking to only one side, then you're not talking peace. You're talking their side. Worse, these publicity-seeking idiots who go about trying to negotiate 'peace' without the explicit or implicit say-so of their government often make matters worse by disrupting other negotiations.
A serious question. What would you do regarding Russia / Ukraine if you were in charge? Do you think the current “strategy” is a good one?
No, we should be providing more and better arms so this stalemate can be ended and so the Russian occupation can be ended. Then we might get peace. Currently people are dying needlessly on both sides and it would be a disaster to let Russia take Ukraine or even part of it. We should stop this half hearted support and put Putin back in his box. With any luck that might also have the result of Putin losing his power in Russia and Luckashenko being removed in Belarus and reverting to a democracy.
Isn't there an issue about numbers of men, though? Which is why the Russians are resorting to all sorts of methods to increase their manpower, which the Ukrainians are largely 'restricted' to local men. How long before Kyiv has to start calling up women?
Agree which is why we shouldn't have been half hearted in the first place. They will run out of men, worse they are running out because they are being needlessly maimed and killed on both sides by this stalemate and neither side is giving up. Potentially we could have made a difference by being bolder.
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022. So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.
I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
It's possible that a ceasefire works to Ukraine's advantage. It could end up being the Croatia scenario, as I've mentioned before, where Croatia spent a few years preparing itself and then managed to push the Serbs out.
But to do so it would require massive continuing support from the West - in military equipment, financial and economic support. So, pretty much the same sort of requirement from the West as if the war continues.
Unfortunately, an the indications are that Western politician see the prospect of a ceasefire as an opportunity to reduce support for Ukraine. That they view a possible temporary deal as actually permanent and grooms for a rapprochement with Russia. So I have more confidence that Ukraine will receive support from the West if the war continues and there isn't a ceasefire.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
China, Russia, India, Israel, the USA, France, all play according to big boys’ rules. They aren’t impressed by handwringing or apologies. They don’t agonise over the past. Our own leaders are simply abject.
Do you want the UK to be more like Russia and Israel? Should we invade Ireland? Or more like China?
What I would like is for the UK’s political class to wake up to the fact that the world is a cold, hard, place; that no country of any significance gives a damn about human rights or international law if these things conflict with reason of state. That nobody is impressed because you give apologies for the past. That relations between states are mostly transactional.
None of those things are true. Ideas of human rights, while contested in detail, are widespread in the most significant countries in the world. Most countries follow international law most of the time. Relations between states often reflect long-standing ties of culture and trade. Apologies can help heal divisions.
Is Russia a better place because they’re playing “according to big boys’ rules”? Is Israel? Is China?
No, they aren’t better places, but your error is to think that rival powers will be impressed by your values. They will not.
In fact, they will hold you in contempt.
We need to up our game: hard power, hard politics, strong deals and proactive intelligence - including deployment of agents.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...
Tariffs
For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.
Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.
I read the other day - can't recall where - that the TV producer of the Apprentice has come forward to say 'sorry' because basically they invented Trump the myth that he is this super business brain. It was all tosh. They made it all up. He was a struggling real estate guy when they started. His office was so crap they had to build a special set.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.
The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.
They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.
If anything the Commonwealth is needed more than enough to contain Chinese influence in the developing world and foster cultural exchange and development links in English speaking nations with common law and Westminster style democracy.
Don't forget either India, the biggest Commonwealth nation does not have a great relationship with China as they have border disputes with each other even if Modi is neutral on Putin (and Modi failed to get the landslide win he was hoping for in the Indian election a few months ago)
I would trim down the Commonwealth to just the majority "L1" English-speaking nations, ie. UK, Aus, NZ and Canada, and, er, shall we say, "persuade" the USA and Ireland to join.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
China, Russia, India, Israel, the USA, France, all play according to big boys’ rules. They aren’t impressed by handwringing or apologies. They don’t agonise over the past. Our own leaders are simply abject.
Do you want the UK to be more like Russia and Israel? Should we invade Ireland? Or more like China?
France wouid be good. Democratic and liberal but with a self confident patriotism that is proud of France and French culture and the French contribution to civilisation and not about to hand over reunion island to Beijing
Then we would also finally have to put one side to anti-intellectualism that has blighted Britain since the mid-nineteenth century.
No sign of that yet.
It's more nuanced than that. The UK combines an extraordinary intellectual, academic and cultural existence alongside a raucous barbarism, especially in politics, sport, yoof culture and the pretend anti-intellectualism of posh bits of the media. This goes back a long way. Think of the golden age of Northumbria; Bede, the Synod of Whitby, Lindisfarne gospels and the Ruthwell cross, and put it alongside what ordinary life, death, murder, rape and battle was actually like.
Today's politics; the power battle sport is between intellectual barbarians while Rory, Curtice, Bogdanor, Hennessy, George Parker, Tim Bale, Iain Dale and company do the commentary.
Actually it is huge fun.
I would see it rather differently, in that I think that our world-leading Universities are essentially what remains of Enlightenment Britain before a facile cult of anti-intellectualism swept through for about 150 years , a misunderstanding of empiricism and scepticism.
As I've mentioned before , look at our public culture compared to France and Germany's. A broadcast culture can only be dumbed down to that extent, with litle state or public opposition, if complex ideas are less valued.
I don't know about that. In the early nineteenth century our university Fellows were mostly interested in having a good time.
Whilst I agree with you, in part, about anti-intellectualism, I'd say it's more of a post-1960's phenomenon. I can remember actually looking forward to people like Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, David Frost, Sir Robin Day interviewing important political figures. i think it's years now, since I've listened to a political interview.
I wouldn't personally describe it as a post-1960's phenomenon.
The 1960"s and 1970s BBC was often leftwing, but also creatively and intellectually ambitious. Joan Bakewell in her miniskirt interviewing, and sometimes besting a whole range of artists and intellectuals, on late night BBC2, embodied that.
The BBC that I remember in the 1980's was full of of a very fertile mix of.post- 1960's liberals and.patricians, who were somehow able to expand each others' horizons. Alasdair Milne was the embodiment of this mixture, and Thatcher was desperate to get rid of him.
I think what really did for highbrow British broadcasting is that Thatcher and Murduch shared a sort of petit-bourgeois anti-intellectualism, and there was no public pushback against that as there might have been in France or Gernany.
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022. So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.
I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
It's possible that a ceasefire works to Ukraine's advantage. It could end up being the Croatia scenario, as I've mentioned before, where Croatia spent a few years preparing itself and then managed to push the Serbs out.
But to do so it would require massive continuing support from the West - in military equipment, financial and economic support. So, pretty much the same sort of requirement from the West as if the war continues.
Unfortunately, an the indications are that Western politician see the prospect of a ceasefire as an opportunity to reduce support for Ukraine. That they view a possible temporary deal as actually permanent and grooms for a rapprochement with Russia. So I have more confidence that Ukraine will receive support from the West if the war continues and there isn't a ceasefire.
I’m not so sure. There’s still all that Russian money locked up. And Republicans love creating work for US defence contractors.
O/T I was distraught, bordering on full nervous collapse, at not having received Nigel Farage's promised personalised email urging defection to Reform.
So, imagine how tears of sorrow turned to those of joy, when I discovered that it was resting in the spam folder, along with Muslim News and crap from Robert Jenrick (voted for Kemi yesterday).
And there, brothers and sisters, it shall remain until I can summon enough energy to delete the bloody thing. All is right with the world.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
Yet Harris and her team have no real counter to that. It's staggering.
“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”
They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.
But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)
Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.
The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.
The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.
They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.
If anything the Commonwealth is needed more than enough to contain Chinese influence in the developing world and foster cultural exchange and development links in English speaking nations with common law and Westminster style democracy.
Don't forget either India, the biggest Commonwealth nation does not have a great relationship with China as they have border disputes with each other even if Modi is neutral on Putin (and Modi failed to get the landslide win he was hoping for in the Indian election a few months ago)
I would trim down the Commonwealth to just the majority "L1" English-speaking nations, ie. UK, Aus, NZ and Canada, and, er, shall we say, "persuade" the USA and Ireland to join.
Yes but we are already automatically linked to them as they are Commonwealth realms.
The US and Ireland won't join due to its associations with the ex British Empire but also it would lose its use and may as well be scrapped anyway without developing nations as they are the ones we most need to build links with to contain China
Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to give ground on reparations amid demands from Commonwealth nations for payments of up to £18 trillion.
The Prime Minister has rejected calls for financial reparations, but is reportedly considering non-cash options such as providing debt relief.
Other possible options could include a formal apology, supporting public health institutions and educational programmes for students from Commonwealth nations.
Mr. Urquhart, "The Prime Minister has rejected calls for financial reparations, but is reportedly considering non-cash options such as providing debt relief."
Hmm. Isn't debt relief just the same damned thing, only the hit is what we would've gained instead of an immediate cost?
Give an inch and they'll just demand more. And more. And more. It's a pathetic thing to capitulate.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...
Tariffs
For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.
Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.
I read the other day - can't recall where - that the TV producer of the Apprentice has come forward to say 'sorry' because basically they invented Trump the myth that he is this super business brain. It was all tosh. They made it all up. He was a struggling real estate guy when they started. His office was so crap they had to build a special set.
Actual business is mundane and hard work.
People don't want to watch that.
Arrogant bullshitters humiliating wannabe arrogant bullshitters is more entertaining.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.
And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...
Tariffs
For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.
Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.
I read the other day - can't recall where - that the TV producer of the Apprentice has come forward to say 'sorry' because basically they invented Trump the myth that he is this super business brain. It was all tosh. They made it all up. He was a struggling real estate guy when they started. His office was so crap they had to build a special set.
The last twenty five years have been very kind to millionaires with big property portfolios in New York and London. Think all those small scale speculators buying a house, spending £10k on a new toilet and flipping it for £60k profit thinking it was all down to their genius, when the growth was a booming market place.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
You say Farage but remember Boris sees himself as the king across the water.
If Trump wins and Badenoch wins I think the odds of Boris returning as Tory leader by the next GE increase significantly yes, he is the only Conservative leader (apart from maybe Mogg) who could really squeeze Farage back into his box
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
Yet Harris and her team have no real counter to that. It's staggering.
Their counter to that is that high inflation has now ended in the US and the economy is doing well.
So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .
Isn’t this a security risk ?
And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?
And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .
I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…
And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…
Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?
I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.
But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.
I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better. You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.
I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.
If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.
With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.
The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.
In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.
FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022. So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.
I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
The only way it end is with security guarantees for Ukraine (ie NATO membership) - otherwise it's just a pause. And Putin won't accept that.
If Trump wins, there may not be a NATO in a few years time.
The Truss episode seems ever more surreal in hindsight, conclusive proof that the Tory hegemony was coming to an end. It is worse than the 45 days that she survived as PM. The Tory membership listened to that bat shit insanity over months and thought, "yes, we'll have some of that." Conclusive proof that they were not fit to govern.
I feel a bit sorry for Sunak. If the Conservative party membership had chosen him instead I think his Premiership would have been different but it was constantly overshadowed by the Truss fiasco. And now the members are being given another second or even third rate choice. The future existence of the Tories as a major player in UK politics is by no means assured.
Yawn. Zero analysis, just asinine repetition of Labour talking points.
In what way are they “Labour talking points?” They are *everyone other than you* talking points. This is politics - you have to be able to perceive your position via the majority or you are sunk.
It isn’t David’s fault that he is a Tory supporter with political antennae and you don’t have them.
I am well aware that Truss's reputation is trash - the issue I take is with supposedly intelligent posters who lazily buy into cretinous economically-illiterate memes about the market disturbances following the minibudget, especially if they claim to support the Tory Party. We should be better.
You say Farage but remember Boris sees himself as the king across the water.
If Trump wins and Badenoch wins I think the odds of Boris returning as Tory leader by the next GE increase significantly yes, he is the only Conservative leader (apart from maybe Mogg) who could really squeeze Farage back into his box
If the Conservatives even think about bringing Boris back then they've no wish to be a serious party of government.
Boris leant nothing from other people's mistakes and has learnt nothing from his own mistakes.
I can accept people making mistakes, they are an inevitable part of life.
But I cannot accept people not learning from them.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...
Tariffs
For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.
Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.
I read the other day - can't recall where - that the TV producer of the Apprentice has come forward to say 'sorry' because basically they invented Trump the myth that he is this super business brain. It was all tosh. They made it all up. He was a struggling real estate guy when they started. His office was so crap they had to build a special set.
I think this is a decent video on Trump from Johnny Harris (who is definitely not a fan).
Trump transitioned from real estate with his Dad, to some big projects in Manhattan when it was a dump, but he moved on to leveraging the Trump name to splash on everything and anything (when he was just licensing the name). Basically Trump was doing a Richard Branson / influencer marketing before influencer marketing before influencer marketing was a thing. He managed to earn a lot of money from leveraging his brand (even before the Apprentice) with zero risk to himself. That was smart business and the Apprentice put that influencer marketing on steroids.
However, he will do anything to win, or seen to win, he cheats, he is unethical, he only cares about himself, and lots of these business failures he ensured others were left on the hook.
You say Farage but remember Boris sees himself as the king across the water.
If Trump wins and Badenoch wins I think the odds of Boris returning as Tory leader by the next GE increase significantly yes, he is the only Conservative leader (apart from maybe Mogg) who could really squeeze Farage back into his box
And you really believe this nonsense
Johnson is the last person the conservative party need going forward
O/T I was distraught, bordering on full nervous collapse, at not having received Nigel Farage's promised personalised email urging defection to Reform.
So, imagine how tears of sorrow turned to those of joy, when I discovered that it was resting in the spam folder, along with Muslim News and crap from Robert Jenrick (voted for Kemi yesterday).
And there, brothers and sisters, it shall remain until I can summon enough energy to delete the bloody thing. All is right with the world.
I still haven’t voted for Kemi and I am struggling to do so.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression. Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...
Tariffs
For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.
Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.
I read the other day - can't recall where - that the TV producer of the Apprentice has come forward to say 'sorry' because basically they invented Trump the myth that he is this super business brain. It was all tosh. They made it all up. He was a struggling real estate guy when they started. His office was so crap they had to build a special set.
I think this is a decent video on Trump from Johnny Harris (who is definitely not a fan).
Trump was doing a Richard Branson / influencer marketing before influencer marketing before influencer marketing was a thing. He managed to earn a lot of money from leveraging his brand (even before the Apprentice) with zero risk to him. That was smart business and the Apprentice was that on steroids.
He will do anything to win, or seen to win, he cheats, he is unethical, he only cares about himself, but lots of these business failures weren't him or he left others on the hook.
Branson regularly features on in Private Eye. To save OGHs blushes, I won't repeat the stories here.
Suffice it to say the comparison between him and Trump has more... depth? than some might think.
Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.
How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.
Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.
How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.
And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.
And in the USA its easy to get a gun.
They'd also be on a kill list if they didn't.
Well they didn't overturn the 2020 result and they're still here.
And would a Trump fanatic try to kill then thus allowing President Harris to nominate their successor ?
Comments
BRICS was invented by an analyst to sell the concept of investing in emerging markets. It has logic from an economic analysis perspective.
But a group of countries holding a conference doesn’t make it a “thing”.
NATO is. Five Eyes. ASEAN. OPEC. G7. May be even G20 or G12+1…
These all have logic, a purpose and a rationale. The “BRICS” don’t like American and Western values. They aren’t a common group, just a bunch of thugs that aware hanging out together.
Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.
Bob J 4.8
Longyearbyen is bleak but interesting with its former mining interests
The guides are always armed in case of encounters with polar bears and indeed it is the only place we have seen a polar bear in its natural habitat
That just met in Russia of all places. The most significant agreement being to work on a currency - which could end up being another Bitcoin, but could also end up being the new Euro, transferring much of the World’s financial power to this grouping.
https://www.reuters.com/world/main-takeaways-brics-summit-2024-10-24/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/
Not least of which would be to provide funding for Ukraine's domestic drone industry, which could provide the weapons to defeat Russia while minimising Ukrainian casualties.
Trump would make the situation more dangerous by providing less support. That's kinda obvious.
How long before Kyiv has to start calling up women?
Though yes had Haley been picked by Republican voters as GOP nominee she would be heading for a clear victory, more acceptable to Independents and Democrats than Trump and Ukraine would be assured of her strong support.
Stages of Trump Denial:
1. It didn’t happen.
2. Whatever happened wasn’t a big deal.
3. Someone else did it.
4. Whatever happened isn’t illegal.
5. The President can’t be liable for whatever happened.
6. Obama did it too.
7. Who cares if the President did it & it’s illegal?
8. ?
We're already on to (2).
For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.
But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.
Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?
Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.
Another Reagan or Obama would get a 50-state result today.
Obviously not for nuclear weapons. No.
Electoral Calculus had a poll out with a Badenoch led Tories on 22% just 1% ahead of Farage's Reform on 21%, Labour were on 29% and the LDs on 12%.
Whereas under Jenrick the Tories were unchanged on the GE on 23% with Reform on 20%, Labour on 28% and the LDs also on 12%
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_hypopoll_20241017.html
Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.
The three-time defending champions reached 52-2 but were bowled out for 53 amid a flurry of wickets on a bouncy, green pitch in Perth.
The one run added came from a wide, with numbers five to 10 in the batting order all dismissed for ducks.
Tasmania seamer Beau Webster took 6-17 and fast bowler Billy Stanlake 3-12. Tasmania chased their target in 8.3 overs for a seven-wicket win.
The collapse was made more remarkable by the fact all 11 of Western Australia's XI were Australia internationals.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c98e148524po
As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.
And Putin won't accept that.
As England waste a review that was miles outside.
Trump is utterly appalling - but there are worst creatures than him in the US. See Project 2025 for details.
Harris is OK. She just isn't a first rank, Big Beast politician at national level. She would be a better president than a long list of the no hopers who've filled that spot.
Tariffs
As Marc notes: It "could either reset culture war politics for years to come in presidential races or, if Trump loses, go down as a major, even historic, tactical blunder."
https://x.com/samstein/status/1849473156378984753
I know you want Jenrick to win but I also know you will back Badenoch if she does
I really am not interested in a single poll, especially as we will know a week tomorrow
Some good analysts (eg Jake Broe) are scoffing at this as US election interference, the 10k infantry only fills 2 weeks of Russian losses etc… but I think that rather neglects how things might develop, given there has been exactly zero consequence to Kim for directly entering the conflict.
Trump 2024 is worse than Trump 2020 is worse than Trump 2016.
Harris 2024 is worse than Biden 2020 is worse than H. Clinton 2016.
IMHO Harris is a totally empty suit, same as Starmer. She stands for nothing except gaining power and can’t articulate the most basic ideas of policy.
Good reporting is like a cold glass of clean water on a hot day, isn't it?
And in the USA its easy to get a gun.
Don't forget either India, the biggest Commonwealth nation does not have a great relationship with China as they have border disputes with each other even if Modi is neutral on Putin (and Modi failed to get the landslide win he was hoping for in the Indian election a few months ago)
Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.
Er, yes. Yes they can.
But would they want that threat to be x100 or x1000 ?
Life is good
We being the west not the UK.
But to do so it would require massive continuing support from the West - in military equipment, financial and economic support. So, pretty much the same sort of requirement from the West as if the war continues.
Unfortunately, an the indications are that Western politician see the prospect of a ceasefire as an opportunity to reduce support for Ukraine. That they view a possible temporary deal as actually permanent and grooms for a rapprochement with Russia. So I have more confidence that Ukraine will receive support from the West if the war continues and there isn't a ceasefire.
We need to up our game: hard power, hard politics, strong deals and proactive intelligence - including deployment of agents.
https://x.com/KuldkeppMart/status/1849430060253548953
Some contrast with Guterres, toadying up to Putin at the BRICS meeting.
The 1960"s and 1970s BBC was often leftwing, but also creatively and intellectually ambitious. Joan Bakewell in her miniskirt interviewing, and sometimes besting a whole range of artists and intellectuals, on late night BBC2, embodied that.
The BBC that I remember in the 1980's was full of of a very fertile mix of.post- 1960's liberals and.patricians, who were somehow able to expand each others' horizons. Alasdair Milne was the embodiment of this mixture, and Thatcher was desperate to get rid of him.
I think what really did for highbrow British broadcasting is that Thatcher and Murduch shared a sort of petit-bourgeois anti-intellectualism, and there was no public pushback against that as there might have been in France or Gernany.
So, imagine how tears of sorrow turned to those of joy, when I discovered that it was resting in the spam folder, along with Muslim News and crap from Robert Jenrick (voted for Kemi yesterday).
And there, brothers and sisters, it shall remain until I can summon enough energy to delete the bloody thing. All is right with the world.
The US and Ireland won't join due to its associations with the ex British Empire but also it would lose its use and may as well be scrapped anyway without developing nations as they are the ones we most need to build links with to contain China
The Prime Minister has rejected calls for financial reparations, but is reportedly considering non-cash options such as providing debt relief.
Other possible options could include a formal apology, supporting public health institutions and educational programmes for students from Commonwealth nations.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/25/keir-starmer-prepares-give-ground-commonwealth-reparations/
Hmm. Isn't debt relief just the same damned thing, only the hit is what we would've gained instead of an immediate cost?
Give an inch and they'll just demand more. And more. And more. It's a pathetic thing to capitulate.
People don't want to watch that.
Arrogant bullshitters humiliating wannabe arrogant bullshitters is more entertaining.
Boris leant nothing from other people's mistakes and has learnt nothing from his own mistakes.
I can accept people making mistakes, they are an inevitable part of life.
But I cannot accept people not learning from them.
The REAL Story of Donald Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_JpCSvTpk&
Trump transitioned from real estate with his Dad, to some big projects in Manhattan when it was a dump, but he moved on to leveraging the Trump name to splash on everything and anything (when he was just licensing the name). Basically Trump was doing a Richard Branson / influencer marketing before influencer marketing before influencer marketing was a thing. He managed to earn a lot of money from leveraging his brand (even before the Apprentice) with zero risk to himself. That was smart business and the Apprentice put that influencer marketing on steroids.
However, he will do anything to win, or seen to win, he cheats, he is unethical, he only cares about himself, and lots of these business failures he ensured others were left on the hook.
Johnson is the last person the conservative party need going forward
George’s endorsement might help…
Suffice it to say the comparison between him and Trump has more... depth? than some might think.
And would a Trump fanatic try to kill then thus allowing President Harris to nominate their successor ?