Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
Yes. There is no way Trump can get a constitutional amendment through.
Presumably it is going to be like a funeral on the Labour backbenches at PMQs in a minute or two?
I think Kemi might go on that e.g Lammy’s comments. It’s a goal she might be tempted to take, though majoring on Trump in her first PMQs might not be tactically the best
The Tories have a big call to make about how much distance they want to put between themselves and Trumpism.
Most Tory voters prefer Harris to Trump, only Reform voters preferred the latter. They can be respectful to the incoming president without seemingly to indicate we should do all he does.
Apart from the "bro"s, every world leader is going to have to kiss his orange ring in the hope of mitigating his actions. 4 years of damage control, not a great prospect.
There's going to be some embarrassing toadying going on which world leaders will then see form the basis of a Trump anecdote at some point.
That's superpowers for you, especially when headed by one who wants personal praise more than most (I'm sure most presidents enjoy the power, but the in person display of it not as big a priority perhaps).
Trump loves a kiss arse, and seems to have a short memory. Indeed he quite likes a turncoat in his favour, hence Vice President Elect Vance.
All those people who used to criticise him practically begging for his attention and praising everything from his looks to his golf game (rather than just praising his presidency) is definitely part of that.
Its started already, CNN just ran a segment where all the talking heads agreed Trump doesn't really have a mandate.
I hate the word mandate with a passion. No-one ever really has one, according to opponents, whilst anything is part of that mandate, for the person claiming it.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
The Poles are building Europe's strongest army.
Given their location at the crossroads between Russia and central/western Europe, history would suggest they would be wise to have a very strong army on hand.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
At the moment the peace that looks achievable is one based on Ukrainian weakness, did to the cessation of support from the US. As peaces go this is likely to involve a high degree of suffering for Ukrainian civilians under Russian occupation, so you can understand why Ukrainians would prefer to receive the support that would enable them to defeat Russia.
I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.
To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.
Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.
Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?
Doesn't really matter. It's the signal it sends.
I'm not sure how much that matters given the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president by the time of our next GE.
If Badenoch spends a few years battling with Farage for Reform voters, and does so by making pro-Trump noises, it will absolutely make a difference. Perhaps not to Reform voters, but certainly to the Lib Dems in the Shires.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
Yes. There is no way Trump can get a constitutional amendment through.
I reckon if it got to SCOTUS it'd be a 7-2, Thomas would definitely let him have another term with some batshit reading of the constitution lol. Perhaps Alito too. I think Gorsuch and the other Conservatives wouldn't.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
At the moment the peace that looks achievable is one based on Ukrainian weakness, did to the cessation of support from the US. As peaces go this is likely to involve a high degree of suffering for Ukrainian civilians under Russian occupation, so you can understand why Ukrainians would prefer to receive the support that would enable them to defeat Russia.
I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.
Remember that Biden deliberately stopped us providing some support that we wanted to.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
A stalemate is better than a temporary peace that allows Putin to rebuild his capacity to redraw the map of Europe in the way he wants. But a permanent peace is better than a stalemate. You are not going to get a permanent peace on Day One of a Trump presidency. You are only going to get a temporary one.
You mean he was using a rhetorical device? Oh my.
Oh and you casually throw out the word stalemate as though it somehow doesn't involve the death of many young men. You don't get to say whether that is a "price worth paying".
We don't know if he was using a rhetorical device, that's kind of the point here. I am concerned it was not.
The reality of war is that young men (and women) will die fighting it, and many civilians of all ages will too. The Ukrainians get to decide whether it is a price worth paying. If they believe it is, I believe we should help them because it is in our interests to do so.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.
To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.
And he'd have to do it in the face of opposition from those on his own side expecting to run again.
Plus he'll be as old as Biden is now at the end of the term. Maybe if he was 20 years younger there'd be a 1% chance we'd need to worry about it. But he's not, and it's pure paranoia.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
At the moment the peace that looks achievable is one based on Ukrainian weakness, did to the cessation of support from the US. As peaces go this is likely to involve a high degree of suffering for Ukrainian civilians under Russian occupation, so you can understand why Ukrainians would prefer to receive the support that would enable them to defeat Russia.
I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.
Remember that Biden deliberately stopped us providing some support that we wanted to.
There are calculations of escalation to be considered, and national interests not necessarily aligned to all the wishes of the Ukrainians, I am sure. Not easy decisions to make, but naturally here on the layman side it's very frustrating given the escalations ignored from the other side, yet at times it feels like foot dragging.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
Yes. There is no way Trump can get a constitutional amendment through.
I reckon if it got to SCOTUS it'd be a 7-2, Thomas would definitely let him have another term with some batshit reading of the constitution lol. Perhaps Alito too. I think Gorsuch and the other Conservatives wouldn't.
If nothing else, a "Just drop amendments I don't like" reading of the constitution would threaten the 2nd Amendment.
Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.
Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?
Doesn't really matter. It's the signal it sends.
I'm not sure how much that matters given the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president by the time of our next GE.
If Badenoch spends a few years battling with Farage for Reform voters, and does so by making pro-Trump noises, it will absolutely make a difference. Perhaps not to Reform voters, but certainly to the Lib Dems in the Shires.
That's a massive "if" to extrapolate from a mere six questions in a single week's PMQs.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
Yes. There is no way Trump can get a constitutional amendment through.
Never say never. The Supreme Court can always decide something weird.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.
To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.
He's an old old man already, I cannot see even him trying this, though he has 'joked' about it, and his jokes are often actually genuine. If he sees no need to hang on - like he probably needed to win in order to stay out of prison - then his interest in doing so would in any case evaporate. He can relax with his billions and assurance that karma does not exist.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
Yes. There is no way Trump can get a constitutional amendment through.
I reckon if it got to SCOTUS it'd be a 7-2, Thomas would definitely let him have another term with some batshit reading of the constitution lol. Perhaps Alito too. I think Gorsuch and the other Conservatives wouldn't.
Even Thomas would struggle, I think. Most of what the current SCOTUS has done is to not read words into the Constitution that others have or would (2A cases and Dobbs, for example). The 22nd Amendment is about as clear as it's possible to be.
Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.
I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?
Anything is possible. Against it would be the favourite for Sec of State (also in running for NSA) is Ric Grenell, openly gay. If it happens its probably over a 10-20 year cycle rather than in this term.
A little lesson from history: some Jewish groups, such as the German Vanguard and the German Nazi Jews Association, supported the Nazis during their rise to power. Only to later get outlawed and many members put into the camps. Both groups disliked Marxism and Communism more than they feared Hitler's rhetoric against communists and other groups.
Members of minority groups supporting harsh words and actions against other minority groups should consider this.
In the face of declining birthrates, I could imagine some governments, even liberal democratic ones, seeking to reverse many of the social changes of the post 1960's.
That's very easy for us as men to say. But reversing those social changes will affect women much more than it does men, as the only way for the decline in birthrates to be reversed, and immigration curtailed, is for women to have more children. And it seems many women quite like the idea of not having many, or even any, children.
The survey data I saw from about 15-20 years ago was that, on average, women wanted one more child than they had. Obviously plenty of women are happy without children, or with the size of the family they have, but for others they start a family too late to have as many children as they want, feel forced to settle for a smaller family because they can't afford the housing to comfortably have more, or never meet the right person to raise a family with.
It would be wrong to say that the low birthrate is solely due to women choosing to have fewer children, and that increasing the birthrate would necessarily involve coercion.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.
To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.
He's an old old man already, I cannot see even him trying this, though he has 'joked' about it, and his jokes are often actually genuine. If he sees no need to hang on - like he probably needed to win in order to stay out of prison - then his interest in doing so would in any case evaporate. He can relax with his billions and assurance that karma does not exist.
Yeah, I'm sure that if there were a way he would try it just because he could. But there isn't and he won't.
Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.
Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?
Doesn't really matter. It's the signal it sends.
I'm not sure how much that matters given the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president by the time of our next GE.
If Badenoch spends a few years battling with Farage for Reform voters, and does so by making pro-Trump noises, it will absolutely make a difference. Perhaps not to Reform voters, but certainly to the Lib Dems in the Shires.
That's a massive "if" to extrapolate from a mere six questions in a single week's PMQs.
It's the first PMQs! The tone you set is important, and Badenoch will know that. The Trumpian vibe was deliberate.
I'm sceptical it will work with picking up votes (and particularly seats), but there is no doubt it it's a considered strategy.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
If Trump acts to fully abandon Ukraine - no more military or financial aid, no intelligence, lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of Russian assets - then Ukraine cannot win and the war will stop eventually. It's that simple.
Russia will be free to trade again with much of the world, buy the components and material to build weapons (and indeed buy off-the-shelf weapons) and sustain their war-footing economy for much longer.
There is really only two ways to deal with that. The easy route is to force Ukraine to sign a peace deal, one that will be on Putin's terms. Likely to involve Ukraine ceding all occupied territory to Russia, giving back Kursk, no EU or NATO membership and effective demilitarisation. Which is, of course, is just a way of Putin buying a couple of years to rebuild and then overrun a defenceless Ukraine. It's kicking a hand grenade down the road, but European governments are good at that.
The other is for several major European powers to commit to direct intervention in Ukraine - boots on the ground, jets in the air - until Russia is pushed out. Morally the right thing to do and the only long-term solution to Russian expansionism, but risky on multiple levels. How much of a defence can Europe really mount? NATO militaries have been underfunded for decades and were built with the assumption any major conflict would be fought with massive US support. And some of NATO's best weapons - like the F-35 - cannot be used for any real length of time without US backing.
I hope Europe chooses to defend Ukraine, but the realist in me acknowledges it's the less likely option.
Watching PMQs for the first time in a while, so let me offer a controversial opinion: Starmer is actually quite good. Comes across as reasonable, thoughtful with a hopeful narrative for the country. On Trump, he fought off criticisms from Davey to the left and Badenoch to the right, sounding measured in the middle. A nice gag to Cleverley at the end considering he apparently can't think on his feet, too.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.
Nor can I. But I think that will be drawing the wrong lesson i.e. 'we lost because the voters are sexist' rather than 'we lost because we pick candidates whose position is not close to that of the voters'. But the former will be the easier comfort blanket to cling to.
If the pollsters manage to establish the actual gender splits then it'll be clearer. I doubt it'll much more complicated than pound in pocket and gender
Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.
Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?
Doesn't really matter. It's the signal it sends.
I'm not sure how much that matters given the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president by the time of our next GE.
If Badenoch spends a few years battling with Farage for Reform voters, and does so by making pro-Trump noises, it will absolutely make a difference. Perhaps not to Reform voters, but certainly to the Lib Dems in the Shires.
That's a massive "if" to extrapolate from a mere six questions in a single week's PMQs.
It's the first PMQs! The tone you set is important, and Badenoch will know that. The Trumpian vibe was deliberate.
I'm sceptical it will work with picking up votes (and particularly seats), but there is no doubt it it's a considered strategy.
It's the PMQs mere hours after Trump has won again. If she'd waited until next week you'd have been criticising her for waiting.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
I thought she was OK. She was clearly very nervous but she got through it without any dropping any particular clangers.
Saying Reeves didn't mention defence in the Budget was pretty clangerish, and it's not like it isn't something that couldn't have been checked in 30 seconds.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
A stalemate is better than a temporary peace that allows Putin to rebuild his capacity to redraw the map of Europe in the way he wants. But a permanent peace is better than a stalemate. You are not going to get a permanent peace on Day One of a Trump presidency. You are only going to get a temporary one.
You mean he was using a rhetorical device? Oh my.
Oh and you casually throw out the word stalemate as though it somehow doesn't involve the death of many young men. You don't get to say whether that is a "price worth paying".
We don't know if he was using a rhetorical device, that's kind of the point here. I am concerned it was not.
The reality of war is that young men (and women) will die fighting it, and many civilians of all ages will too. The Ukrainians get to decide whether it is a price worth paying. If they believe it is, I believe we should help them because it is in our interests to do so.
So on the one hand we should keep Ukraine fighting because it is in our interests to do so (the implication being "regardless of what they think"), but on the other you say it is contingent upon them wanting to, which means, presumably, that if they didn't want to we shouldn't help to keep them fighting, despite that not being in our interests.
Clearly abortion was not the salient issue the Harris team (and to be fair me) believed it was. So many people seem to have sat on their hands.
I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.
That's not the right read, I think abortion is still a hugely important issue, 57% of voters in Florida just voted in favour. What people have discovered is that they can just do it at state level which secures it for good rather than leave it to the courts or federal government. That means people are ok with having a GOP senate/house/POTUS and just handling the abortion issue as they see fit.
A real test for Kemi - will she get caught up in the moment and be up Trump like a rat up a drainpipe?
The right wing press is going to try to push the Tories closer to Trump. I think the Tories would do well to resist. The UK is not the US.
Yes, the pressure on Kemi to model herself as a kind of British Trump protegee will be enormous. Even the great and the good of the Tory Party - Boris, Liz Truss - are now full-on Trump admirers, so it's difficult to see where the voices of caution will come from. I fear the temptation will be too great to resist.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
At the moment the peace that looks achievable is one based on Ukrainian weakness, did to the cessation of support from the US. As peaces go this is likely to involve a high degree of suffering for Ukrainian civilians under Russian occupation, so you can understand why Ukrainians would prefer to receive the support that would enable them to defeat Russia.
I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.
Remember that Biden deliberately stopped us providing some support that we wanted to.
I do remember. Ultimately Biden was intimidated, and Ukraine suffers as a result.
I fear that Ukraine's suffering will only increase with "tough guy" Trump even less willing to stand up to Russian aggression.
Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.
Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?
Doesn't really matter. It's the signal it sends.
I'm not sure how much that matters given the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president by the time of our next GE.
If Badenoch spends a few years battling with Farage for Reform voters, and does so by making pro-Trump noises, it will absolutely make a difference. Perhaps not to Reform voters, but certainly to the Lib Dems in the Shires.
She went with party politics exposing something embarrassing for Labour. Personally I think it would have been better and impressed the public more if she had played the national interest card and focused on Europe, specifically Ukraine. I wouldn't assume she'll go full Trumpian and given his popularity in the UK that seems politically stupid.
For all the criticisms of the blob and the civil service the UK Ambassador in Washington seems to have done a great job and advising Starmer to call Trump after the assassination attempt was a masterstroke.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
A real test for Kemi - will she get caught up in the moment and be up Trump like a rat up a drainpipe?
The right wing press is going to try to push the Tories closer to Trump. I think the Tories would do well to resist. The UK is not the US.
Yes, the pressure on Kemi to model herself as a kind of British Trump protegee will be enormous. Even the great and the good of the Tory Party - Boris, Liz Truss - are now full-on Trump admirers, so it's difficult to see where the voices of caution will come from. I fear the temptation will be too great too resist.
The big problem for Kemi is that Trump already has a right wing best friend in the U.K. He’s actually at the party. Badenoch is at best an irrelevant third wheel.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
If Trump acts to fully abandon Ukraine - no more military or financial aid, no intelligence, lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of Russian assets - then Ukraine cannot win and the war will stop eventually. It's that simple.
Russia will be free to trade again with much of the world, buy the components and material to build weapons (and indeed buy off-the-shelf weapons) and sustain their war-footing economy for much longer.
There is really only two ways to deal with that. The easy route is to force Ukraine to sign a peace deal, one that will be on Putin's terms. Likely to involve Ukraine ceding all occupied territory to Russia, giving back Kursk, no EU or NATO membership and effective demilitarisation. Which is, of course, is just a way of Putin buying a couple of years to rebuild and then overrun a defenceless Ukraine. It's kicking a hand grenade down the road, but European governments are good at that.
The other is for several major European powers to commit to direct intervention in Ukraine - boots on the ground, jets in the air - until Russia is pushed out. Morally the right thing to do and the only long-term solution to Russian expansionism, but risky on multiple levels. How much of a defence can Europe really mount? NATO militaries have been underfunded for decades and were built with the assumption any major conflict would be fought with massive US support. And some of NATO's best weapons - like the F-35 - cannot be used for any real length of time without US backing.
I hope Europe chooses to defend Ukraine, but the realist in me acknowledges it's the less likely option.
There is a middle option, though it still tends towards the second, which is for Europe to fill in the hole that a Trump withdrawal would leave, while still not committing to active engagement; constructing a new European Defence Association, within NATO for now but capable of continuing to function if Trump renders NATO inoperable; developing and building the military infrastructure from intelligence to hardware to be functionally independent of Trump blackmail (this includes nuclear independence for the UK); supplying Ukraine with money and equipment in the interim; rewriting EU / domestic rules to enable the spending necessary; rewriting EU rules to prevent hostile actors from preventing these changes, including expelling them if necessary; the UK and EU treating each others are partners again rather than contractors; a nuclear umbrella for Ukraine from UK/France.
That will take an almighty change of mindset and I simply don't see the likes of Starmer (too technocratic), Scholz (too fearful), or Macron (too unpopular) to be able to do it. Instead, I think there'd be a halfhearted effort to carry on as before but without any meaningful structural change - a policy driven by momentum and gesture rather than clear-headed geostrategic thinking. And that wouldn't be enough for Ukraine - or, crucially, whoever's next.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.
To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.
He's an old old man already, I cannot see even him trying this, though he has 'joked' about it, and his jokes are often actually genuine. If he sees no need to hang on - like he probably needed to win in order to stay out of prison - then his interest in doing so would in any case evaporate. He can relax with his billions and assurance that karma does not exist.
Yeah, I'm sure that if there were a way he would try it just because he could. But there isn't and he won't.
I wouldn't be that shocked if he tried to make himself Emperor of America instead.
I thought she was OK. She was clearly very nervous but she got through it without any dropping any particular clangers.
Saying Reeves didn't mention defence in the Budget was pretty clangerish, and it's not like it isn't something that couldn't have been checked in 30 seconds.
I don't believe she will be very effective. It's just as well Starmer isn't particy effective at PMQs either
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable. It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.
Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
Is the government also going to do some tactical fence sitting, or cut itself off from the US?
It really is an important question.
You don't need to be pro Trump to ask it.
I think that's the sensible approach for the UK and for the Conservative Party.
It certainly is not a good idea for the Labour party, but hopefully they will put the national interest first. In the medium term, they should be working very hard on relations with Europe, Canada, Australia etc
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
A stalemate is better than a temporary peace that allows Putin to rebuild his capacity to redraw the map of Europe in the way he wants. But a permanent peace is better than a stalemate. You are not going to get a permanent peace on Day One of a Trump presidency. You are only going to get a temporary one.
You mean he was using a rhetorical device? Oh my.
Oh and you casually throw out the word stalemate as though it somehow doesn't involve the death of many young men. You don't get to say whether that is a "price worth paying".
We don't know if he was using a rhetorical device, that's kind of the point here. I am concerned it was not.
The reality of war is that young men (and women) will die fighting it, and many civilians of all ages will too. The Ukrainians get to decide whether it is a price worth paying. If they believe it is, I believe we should help them because it is in our interests to do so.
So on the one hand we should keep Ukraine fighting because it is in our interests to do so (the implication being "regardless of what they think"), but on the other you say it is contingent upon them wanting to, which means, presumably, that if they didn't want to we shouldn't help to keep them fighting, despite that not being in our interests.
You can't have it both ways.
It is perfectly possible to believe
1) It is in our interests for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, so we should support them, if they want to. 2) It is up to the Ukrainians whether they continue fighting.
The Ukrainians have agency - just because we are providing military aid, doesn't mean they *have* to use it.
A real test for Kemi - will she get caught up in the moment and be up Trump like a rat up a drainpipe?
The right wing press is going to try to push the Tories closer to Trump. I think the Tories would do well to resist. The UK is not the US.
Yes, the pressure on Kemi to model herself as a kind of British Trump protegee will be enormous. Even the great and the good of the Tory Party - Boris, Liz Truss - are now full-on Trump admirers, so it's difficult to see where the voices of caution will come from. I fear the temptation will be too great too resist.
The big problem for Kemi is that Trump already has a right wing best friend in the U.K. He’s actually at the party. Badenoch is at best an irrelevant third wheel.
This is true, but also true of Starmer. Trump respects power and nothing else, a point Tom McTague made. Tom is one of the few people on Unherd I have time for, and here's his article on Trump and Starmer.
Eco-fascists have attacked the US Embassy in London, because...Trump Fascism....
Two people sprayed a bit of orange paint on the embassy in protest at the election of a US president who has stated his intent to repeal laws intended to mitigate climate change. And that makes these people fascists? For God's sake, get a grip.
Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.
I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?
Anything is possible. Against it would be the favourite for Sec of State (also in running for NSA) is Ric Grenell, openly gay. If it happens its probably over a 10-20 year cycle rather than in this term.
A little lesson from history: some Jewish groups, such as the German Vanguard and the German Nazi Jews Association, supported the Nazis during their rise to power. Only to later get outlawed and many members put into the camps. Both groups disliked Marxism and Communism more than they feared Hitler's rhetoric against communists and other groups.
Members of minority groups supporting harsh words and actions against other minority groups should consider this.
In the face of declining birthrates, I could imagine some governments, even liberal democratic ones, seeking to reverse many of the social changes of the post 1960's.
That's very easy for us as men to say. But reversing those social changes will affect women much more than it does men, as the only way for the decline in birthrates to be reversed, and immigration curtailed, is for women to have more children. And it seems many women quite like the idea of not having many, or even any, children.
The survey data I saw from about 15-20 years ago was that, on average, women wanted one more child than they had. Obviously plenty of women are happy without children, or with the size of the family they have, but for others they start a family too late to have as many children as they want, feel forced to settle for a smaller family because they can't afford the housing to comfortably have more, or never meet the right person to raise a family with.
It would be wrong to say that the low birthrate is solely due to women choosing to have fewer children, and that increasing the birthrate would necessarily involve coercion.
It'd be interesting to see the results of that survey, and any others there might have been. But also express caution about making any conclusions from a single survey such a lone time ago.
Children involve compromises. Historically, those compromises have fallen on the women: when a couple start a family; it is the woman who has to chuck in her job; it is the women who does virtually all the caring. One easy way to increase the childcount might be to improve childcare cost and accessibility, and ensure that men do their fair share of child rearing. And perhaps even look after the kids when the woman works, if that best fits their situation.
It did ours.
(Also, health is an issue. Two women in our NCT group were told after their second child that they should not have any more, due to problems with the births. One was a caesarean that went non-optimally for the mother (though both mother and child were fine in the long run), and I wasn't told the reason for the other. Oh, and I know another women who nearly died during childbirth. Her husband's description of being outside the room as the crash cart was wheeled in was traumatic just to listen to.)
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.
Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...
Why would there not be an election?
Trump has suggested there will be no requirements for another election after this one. I suspect that is not entirely true and we will see the Putineque model of elections.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
A stalemate is better than a temporary peace that allows Putin to rebuild his capacity to redraw the map of Europe in the way he wants. But a permanent peace is better than a stalemate. You are not going to get a permanent peace on Day One of a Trump presidency. You are only going to get a temporary one.
You mean he was using a rhetorical device? Oh my.
Oh and you casually throw out the word stalemate as though it somehow doesn't involve the death of many young men. You don't get to say whether that is a "price worth paying".
We don't know if he was using a rhetorical device, that's kind of the point here. I am concerned it was not.
The reality of war is that young men (and women) will die fighting it, and many civilians of all ages will too. The Ukrainians get to decide whether it is a price worth paying. If they believe it is, I believe we should help them because it is in our interests to do so.
So on the one hand we should keep Ukraine fighting because it is in our interests to do so (the implication being "regardless of what they think"), but on the other you say it is contingent upon them wanting to, which means, presumably, that if they didn't want to we shouldn't help to keep them fighting, despite that not being in our interests.
You can't have it both ways.
No, that's not what I have said. I have said it's up to Ukraine to decide what to do. But if they want to fight Putin they should be helped to do so by us because it is in our interests he is at least contained. If we sit back and allow him to overpower European countries because we say no when they ask us for help, we will just be telling him he can decide what Europe's borders will be. However, if the Ukrainians want to stop then that is a decision we are obliged to accept and which we will accept.
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable. It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
Lammy's comments were in 2017, unless he has repeated them, when he wasn't even on the Shadow Front Bench.
David Herdson - big question is if Merz becomes Chancellor. He is much more hawkish. I don't know what Scholz really thinks but it barely matters as he's hamstrung by the deplorables in his own party.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
If Trump acts to fully abandon Ukraine - no more military or financial aid, no intelligence, lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of Russian assets - then Ukraine cannot win and the war will stop eventually. It's that simple.
Russia will be free to trade again with much of the world, buy the components and material to build weapons (and indeed buy off-the-shelf weapons) and sustain their war-footing economy for much longer.
There is really only two ways to deal with that. The easy route is to force Ukraine to sign a peace deal, one that will be on Putin's terms. Likely to involve Ukraine ceding all occupied territory to Russia, giving back Kursk, no EU or NATO membership and effective demilitarisation. Which is, of course, is just a way of Putin buying a couple of years to rebuild and then overrun a defenceless Ukraine. It's kicking a hand grenade down the road, but European governments are good at that.
The other is for several major European powers to commit to direct intervention in Ukraine - boots on the ground, jets in the air - until Russia is pushed out. Morally the right thing to do and the only long-term solution to Russian expansionism, but risky on multiple levels. How much of a defence can Europe really mount? NATO militaries have been underfunded for decades and were built with the assumption any major conflict would be fought with massive US support. And some of NATO's best weapons - like the F-35 - cannot be used for any real length of time without US backing.
I hope Europe chooses to defend Ukraine, but the realist in me acknowledges it's the less likely option.
There is a middle option, though it still tends towards the second, which is for Europe to fill in the hole that a Trump withdrawal would leave, while still not committing to active engagement; constructing a new European Defence Association, within NATO for now but capable of continuing to function if Trump renders NATO inoperable; developing and building the military infrastructure from intelligence to hardware to be functionally independent of Trump blackmail (this includes nuclear independence for the UK); supplying Ukraine with money and equipment in the interim; rewriting EU / domestic rules to enable the spending necessary; rewriting EU rules to prevent hostile actors from preventing these changes, including expelling them if necessary; the UK and EU treating each others are partners again rather than contractors; a nuclear umbrella for Ukraine from UK/France.
That will take an almighty change of mindset and I simply don't see the likes of Starmer (too technocratic), Scholz (too fearful), or Macron (too unpopular) to be able to do it. Instead, I think there'd be a halfhearted effort to carry on as before but without any meaningful structural change - a policy driven by momentum and gesture rather than clear-headed geostrategic thinking. And that wouldn't be enough for Ukraine - or, crucially, whoever's next.
I find your last paragraph very disturbing. As you say Macron and Scholz are lame ducks. Starmer needs to grow a pair and step up to the plate.
I thought she was OK. She was clearly very nervous but she got through it without any dropping any particular clangers.
Saying Reeves didn't mention defence in the Budget was pretty clangerish, and it's not like it isn't something that couldn't have been checked in 30 seconds.
I don't believe she will be very effective. It's just as well Starmer isn't particy effective at PMQs either
You could be right. One thing to bear in mind is that she's never asked a PQ from the dispatch box before - it's a specific skill and nerves are to be expected. Maybe she'll grow into it, and maybe she won't. Forecasting either way from the debut is courageous...
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.
Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...
Why would there not be an election?
Trump has suggested there will be no requirements for another election after this one. I suspect that is not entirely true and we will see the Putineque model of elections.
This was addressed on the radio this morning. Plenty of people in Republican party are happy to have power but are aware that Trump is not the future. There is no way that America is going to stop having elections. And your suggestion that they will become Russified is just rubbish. Frankly its the Trump Derangement Syndrome all over again.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.
Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...
Why would there not be an election?
Trump has suggested there will be no requirements for another election after this one. I suspect that is not entirely true and we will see the Putineque model of elections.
If anything it'll be like the last Polish election. It'll still be competitive but with a large institutional bias towards the incumbent party. Donald Tusk's coalition won the election but it's having to spend ages clearing out all of the Law and Justice Party placemen.
Clearly abortion was not the salient issue the Harris team (and to be fair me) believed it was. So many people seem to have sat on their hands.
I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.
That's not the right read, I think abortion is still a hugely important issue, 57% of voters in Florida just voted in favour. What people have discovered is that they can just do it at state level which secures it for good rather than leave it to the courts or federal government. That means people are ok with having a GOP senate/house/POTUS and just handling the abortion issue as they see fit.
Sure. Ballot initiatives take the issue out of party politics.
Clearly abortion was not the salient issue the Harris team (and to be fair me) believed it was. So many people seem to have sat on their hands.
I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.
That's not the right read, I think abortion is still a hugely important issue, 57% of voters in Florida just voted in favour. What people have discovered is that they can just do it at state level which secures it for good rather than leave it to the courts or federal government. That means people are ok with having a GOP senate/house/POTUS and just handling the abortion issue as they see fit.
Yes - while I'm deeply uncomfortable with the direction of travel in some states on abortion, it was never obvious to me given the governmental structure of the USA that abortion rights should be a federal rather than state issue. Of course, getting it made a state issue was a tactical move by those who want to limit it, not an arcane matter by those interested in procedure being correct. But the reverse was true 50 years ago when it got made a federal issue. And procedure matters. If you're happy doing the right things the wrong way, you will have no recompense when someone attempts to do the wrong things the wrong way.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.
Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...
Why would there not be an election?
Trump has suggested there will be no requirements for another election after this one. I suspect that is not entirely true and we will see the Putineque model of elections.
This was addressed on the radio this morning. Plenty of people in Republican party are happy to have power but are aware that Trump is not the future. There is no way that America is going to stop having elections. And your suggestion that they will become Russified is just rubbish. Frankly its the Trump Derangement Syndrome all over again.
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable. It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
Lammy's comments were in 2017, unless he has repeated them, when he wasn't even on the Shadow Front Bench.
Trouble is the internet is very good at remembering things. So when Lammy meets his US counterpart, you can be pretty sure that they know full well what he said and thought.
Clearly abortion was not the salient issue the Harris team (and to be fair me) believed it was. So many people seem to have sat on their hands.
I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.
That's not the right read, I think abortion is still a hugely important issue, 57% of voters in Florida just voted in favour. What people have discovered is that they can just do it at state level which secures it for good rather than leave it to the courts or federal government. That means people are ok with having a GOP senate/house/POTUS and just handling the abortion issue as they see fit.
That's one of the unknowns for the future.
There's quite a lot that the federal government could do to limit abortion rights nationwide, if it made it a priority. I don't think Trump much cares either way, but much of his party does.
Note that the Florida vote fell short of the majority it needed to secure abortion rights.
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable. It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
Lammy's comments were in 2017, unless he has repeated them, when he wasn't even on the Shadow Front Bench.
Trouble is the internet is very good at remembering things. So when Lammy meets his US counterpart, you can be pretty sure that they know full well what he said and thought.
Yes, this is an object lesson on a) mouthing off on Twitter for no immediately apparent gain, and b) appointing those with a history of (a) to be FS.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.
As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.
But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.
A stalemate is better than a temporary peace that allows Putin to rebuild his capacity to redraw the map of Europe in the way he wants. But a permanent peace is better than a stalemate. You are not going to get a permanent peace on Day One of a Trump presidency. You are only going to get a temporary one.
You mean he was using a rhetorical device? Oh my.
Oh and you casually throw out the word stalemate as though it somehow doesn't involve the death of many young men. You don't get to say whether that is a "price worth paying".
We don't know if he was using a rhetorical device, that's kind of the point here. I am concerned it was not.
The reality of war is that young men (and women) will die fighting it, and many civilians of all ages will too. The Ukrainians get to decide whether it is a price worth paying. If they believe it is, I believe we should help them because it is in our interests to do so.
So on the one hand we should keep Ukraine fighting because it is in our interests to do so (the implication being "regardless of what they think"), but on the other you say it is contingent upon them wanting to, which means, presumably, that if they didn't want to we shouldn't help to keep them fighting, despite that not being in our interests.
You can't have it both ways.
No, that's not what I have said. I have said it's up to Ukraine to decide what to do. But if they want to fight Putin they should be helped to do so by us because it is in our interests he is at least contained. If we sit back and allow him to overpower European countries because we say no when they ask us for help, we will just be telling him he can decide what Europe's borders will be. However, if the Ukrainians want to stop then that is a decision we are obliged to accept and which we will accept.
So our interests don't matter in your calculations of what we should do. That's an interesting take.
As I noted last night, you might think that abortion is the most important issue for you but nationally, for the good of the country, competence on the economy will determine your vote.
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable. It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
It was a hostage to fortune - but note plenty in Trump's own party have done the same, and some are now in his team. Lammy has been rowing back rapidly (though to what effect is unclear):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvzjr8w9mxo ..Firstly, the dinner the prime minister and the Foreign Secretary David Lammy had with the president-elect at Trump Tower in New York in September. Trump, sources say, re-arranged his schedule to find time to meet Starmer and Lammy, which was seen as a “good gesture” with the soon to be president. Secondly, the prime minister managed an early call with Donald Trump shortly after he survived an assassination attempt. Both opportunities to talk to Trump are put down to an impressive diplomatic operation at the British Embassy in Washington – led by the ambassador Dame Karen Pierce. Those close to the foreign secretary say he has also been putting in the leg work for months – including before the election – to get to know and to understand Donald Trump and those around him. On a visit to Washington DC in May, he pointed out in a speech that it was his seventh visit to the US capital in three and a half years. “I’ve been to the United States more times than I’ve been to France. I’ve lived in America, I’ve studied in America, I’ve got family in America. My father is buried in Texas,” he told an audience at the Hudson Institute., external He described Trump as “often misunderstood,” referred to the Vice President Elect JD Vance as “my friend” and added “I totally get the agenda…that drives America First,” a reference to the phrase Trump used in his Inauguration Speech in January 2017 to spell out that “every decision…will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”..
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
Because it was a Democratic policy. It's unclear how he'll behave in government (which was the point of my list).
As I noted last night, you might think that abortion is the most important issue for you but nationally, for the good of the country, competence on the economy will determine your vote.
Good luck with the Trump economic miracle.
Of course you may be right but he'll have to ditch the tariff bullshit first.
As I noted last night, you might think that abortion is the most important issue for you but nationally, for the good of the country, competence on the economy will determine your vote.
Good luck with the Trump economic miracle.
Of course you may be right but he'll have to ditch the tariff bullshit first.
Trump could well be the most catastrophic president for the US economy ever, if he really does go through with the more radical anti-Fed pro-Crypto agenda of some of his key advisors and supporters, never mind his tariffs and protectionism.
But that'll be an issue for the future. For this year, as in all elections, what mattered was telling a compelling story.
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable. It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
Lammy's comments were in 2017, unless he has repeated them, when he wasn't even on the Shadow Front Bench.
Trouble is the internet is very good at remembering things. So when Lammy meets his US counterpart, you can be pretty sure that they know full well what he said and thought.
If Trumpy can forgive his VP for calling him Hitler I'm sure it can be smoothed over, as long as Lammy can perform some Vancean abasement (which he already gives every sign of being able to).
Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.
I don't agree
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable. It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
Lammy's comments were in 2017, unless he has repeated them, when he wasn't even on the Shadow Front Bench.
Trouble is the internet is very good at remembering things. So when Lammy meets his US counterpart, you can be pretty sure that they know full well what he said and thought.
It's not as if Trump doesn't have form on that himself. As could be reminded if necessary, followed swiftfly by a comment along the lines of 'but times and opinions change'.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
As I noted last night, you might think that abortion is the most important issue for you but nationally, for the good of the country, competence on the economy will determine your vote.
Good luck with the Trump economic miracle.
Of course you may be right but he'll have to ditch the tariff bullshit first.
Trump2 will be a lot like Trump1 economically, tax cuts and high spend on pet projects funded by a ballooning deficit. It will probably cause a short term growth spurt (America being less vulnerable to Trussenomics) with problems long term, but the long term isn't his problem so he doesn't care.
And aside from the huge tit he has just made of himself, his podcast is super-cringe. It reminds me of the Spitting Image puppets of Davids Owen and Steele with one in the other's pocket.
The whole thing revolves around that a*****le Campbell saying something leftist and idiotic and inflammatory and Stewart saying "yes Alastair how clever Alastair absolutely Alastair".
What's pathetic is just not to aay 'I was daft and got swept up - d' oh'. Instead he's made it worse by trying to sell his stupid betting as some sort of moral crusade. He's made himself look 10 times worse.
As I noted last night, you might think that abortion is the most important issue for you but nationally, for the good of the country, competence on the economy will determine your vote.
Good luck with the Trump economic miracle.
Of course you may be right but he'll have to ditch the tariff bullshit first.
Trump could well be the most catastrophic president for the US economy ever, if he really does go through with the more radical anti-Fed pro-Crypto agenda of some of his key advisors and supporters, never mind his tariffs and protectionism.
But that'll be an issue for the future. For this year, as in all elections, what mattered was telling a compelling story.
Just watched a Sky News YouTube clip. Lewis Goodall is wearing white socks with a suit. I dress like a teenage skateboarder, but even I'd draw the line at that.
I wear white socks sometimes. And not just for sport activities.
Comments
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-cusp-victory-lap-00187777
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/
I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.
To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.
I think Gorsuch and the other Conservatives wouldn't.
The reality of war is that young men (and women) will die fighting it, and many civilians of all ages will too. The Ukrainians get to decide whether it is a price worth paying. If they believe it is, I believe we should help them because it is in our interests to do so.
Plus he'll be as old as Biden is now at the end of the term. Maybe if he was 20 years younger there'd be a 1% chance we'd need to worry about it. But he's not, and it's pure paranoia.
That 2012 Obama coalition doesn't exist anymore under Trump.
It would be wrong to say that the low birthrate is solely due to women choosing to have fewer children, and that increasing the birthrate would necessarily involve coercion.
The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic
He gets very rattled and misspeaks a lot for a lawyer.
I'm sceptical it will work with picking up votes (and particularly seats), but there is no doubt it it's a considered strategy.
Russia will be free to trade again with much of the world, buy the components and material to build weapons (and indeed buy off-the-shelf weapons) and sustain their war-footing economy for much longer.
There is really only two ways to deal with that. The easy route is to force Ukraine to sign a peace deal, one that will be on Putin's terms. Likely to involve Ukraine ceding all occupied territory to Russia, giving back Kursk, no EU or NATO membership and effective demilitarisation. Which is, of course, is just a way of Putin buying a couple of years to rebuild and then overrun a defenceless Ukraine. It's kicking a hand grenade down the road, but European governments are good at that.
The other is for several major European powers to commit to direct intervention in Ukraine - boots on the ground, jets in the air - until Russia is pushed out. Morally the right thing to do and the only long-term solution to Russian expansionism, but risky on multiple levels. How much of a defence can Europe really mount? NATO militaries have been underfunded for decades and were built with the assumption any major conflict would be fought with massive US support. And some of NATO's best weapons - like the F-35 - cannot be used for any real length of time without US backing.
I hope Europe chooses to defend Ukraine, but the realist in me acknowledges it's the less likely option.
I think she got the right topic, but was a bit nervous.
I doubt it'll much more complicated than pound in pocket and gender
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.
You can't have it both ways.
I fear that Ukraine's suffering will only increase with "tough guy" Trump even less willing to stand up to Russian aggression.
For all the criticisms of the blob and the civil service the UK Ambassador in Washington seems to have done a great job and advising Starmer to call Trump after the assassination attempt was a masterstroke.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court.
Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations;
Massive tariffs;
Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation);
Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine;
Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan;
Ditto NATO;
Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents;
Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state;
Repeal of Obamacare;
Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make
I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning
It really is an important question.
You don't need to be pro Trump to ask it.
That will take an almighty change of mindset and I simply don't see the likes of Starmer (too technocratic), Scholz (too fearful), or Macron (too unpopular) to be able to do it. Instead, I think there'd be a halfhearted effort to carry on as before but without any meaningful structural change - a policy driven by momentum and gesture rather than clear-headed geostrategic thinking. And that wouldn't be enough for Ukraine - or, crucially, whoever's next.
It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor
politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.
It certainly is not a good idea for the Labour party, but hopefully they will put the national interest first. In the medium term, they should be working very hard on relations with Europe, Canada, Australia etc
1) It is in our interests for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, so we should support them, if they want to.
2) It is up to the Ukrainians whether they continue fighting.
The Ukrainians have agency - just because we are providing military aid, doesn't mean they *have* to use it.
https://unherd.com/2024/10/trump-senses-british-weakness/
Children involve compromises. Historically, those compromises have fallen on the women: when a couple start a family; it is the woman who has to chuck in her job; it is the women who does virtually all the caring. One easy way to increase the childcount might be to improve childcare cost and accessibility, and ensure that men do their fair share of child rearing. And perhaps even look after the kids when the woman works, if that best fits their situation.
It did ours.
(Also, health is an issue. Two women in our NCT group were told after their second child that they should not have any more, due to problems with the births. One was a caesarean that went non-optimally for the mother (though both mother and child were fine in the long run), and I wasn't told the reason for the other. Oh, and I know another women who nearly died during childbirth. Her husband's description of being outside the room as the crash cart was wheeled in was traumatic just to listen to.)
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
NEW THREAD
Of course, getting it made a state issue was a tactical move by those who want to limit it, not an arcane matter by those interested in procedure being correct. But the reverse was true 50 years ago when it got made a federal issue.
And procedure matters. If you're happy doing the right things the wrong way, you will have no recompense when someone attempts to do the wrong things the wrong way.
There's quite a lot that the federal government could do to limit abortion rights nationwide, if it made it a priority. I don't think Trump much cares either way, but much of his party does.
Note that the Florida vote fell short of the majority it needed to secure abortion rights.
Lammy has been rowing back rapidly (though to what effect is unclear):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvzjr8w9mxo
..Firstly, the dinner the prime minister and the Foreign Secretary David Lammy had with the president-elect at Trump Tower in New York in September.
Trump, sources say, re-arranged his schedule to find time to meet Starmer and Lammy, which was seen as a “good gesture” with the soon to be president.
Secondly, the prime minister managed an early call with Donald Trump shortly after he survived an assassination attempt.
Both opportunities to talk to Trump are put down to an impressive diplomatic operation at the British Embassy in Washington – led by the ambassador Dame Karen Pierce.
Those close to the foreign secretary say he has also been putting in the leg work for months – including before the election – to get to know and to understand Donald Trump and those around him.
On a visit to Washington DC in May, he pointed out in a speech that it was his seventh visit to the US capital in three and a half years.
“I’ve been to the United States more times than I’ve been to France. I’ve lived in America, I’ve studied in America, I’ve got family in America. My father is buried in Texas,” he told an audience at the Hudson Institute., external
He described Trump as “often misunderstood,” referred to the Vice President Elect JD Vance as “my friend” and added “I totally get the agenda…that drives America First,” a reference to the phrase Trump used in his Inauguration Speech in January 2017 to spell out that “every decision…will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”..
It's unclear how he'll behave in government (which was the point of my list).
Of course you may be right but he'll have to ditch the tariff bullshit first.
But that'll be an issue for the future. For this year, as in all elections, what mattered was telling a compelling story.
Trump is incredibly petty.