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.
@Leon I noted your post earlier where you said you had only been wrong on one thing here. I note others pointing out other occasions where that wasn't true but coincidence would have it that I have just been listening to back broadcasts of More or Less including 11 Sept and they brought up the story of millionaires leaving the country because of Labour. We are argued about it and I think you referred to me as a bit dim.
Well it turns out the story was complete bollocks. The research was nonsense carried out by someone without even the basic knowledge of statistics (who to give him credit came on the show). They looked at linkedin accounts of the super rich (not run of the mill millionaires or even multi millionaires) and of course people who are mobile anyway with homes all over the place. The idiot didn't even understand the concept of a statistical sampling. He pointed out his sample was bigger than many opinion polls and didn't get that it wasn't representative to extrapolate from that the number of millionaires who would leave and in fact it was probably very wrong. He never did get the error because he hadn't a clue about statistics.
To top it all Labour was never mentioned and the poll was done under a Conservative Govt.
You also argued about the supposedly new research on tick and flea medicine impact rivers when a number of us told you it had been a well known fact for years. You stubbornly insisted it was new because Chris Packman said so on Countryfile even though I provided internet links from years before.
There are none so blind.....
You’re just a bit dim
That's all you have got. When presented with the evidence that you got it spectacularly wrong by quoting a load of nonsense and with a link to the actual facts and an actual recording of the person who did the research (if you can call it that) actually demonstrating he did not understand representative sampling, that is all you can say.
And all after giving @MarqueeMark a hard time over getting the election wrong. Any hypocrisy there maybe?
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.
One of the reasons I am so worried (some may say obsessed) by Woke is that I really do think this could happen.
I was on board with socialism liberalism until the Noughties; its overreach and failure to respond to electoral concerns might drive its downfall.
Have to say the NYT needle was a very easy way to make money last night. It alerted me to the possiblity of Trump winning the popular vote well before the markets seemed to react.
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.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 2h For the record - I was completely wrong about Kamala Harris. It is heartbreaking that Trump is now the President. https://x.com/RoryStewartUK
I like Rory a lot but the problem is that he (and people like him, ie the entire political class) have absolutely no realistic and implementable solutions that will even vaguely change the direction of travel in to decline and failure. There comes a point where you have to 'try something else', even if the alternative is superficially horrifying, because it has a chance of working; and as I see it that is where we are with Trump.
I keep using Ukraine as the example because it is something I pay very close attention to. No one can admit that this situation is bad and either the strategy has failed (that Russia is to be beaten), or just pure evil (sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men in a war of attrition for vaguely defined geopolitical puroposes), or just that there is no strategy at all, but the political class have nothing to say about it, it is just business as usual.
The transformation I have seen in a section of the left is somewhat different. It is the rise of "We are morally right. We are beyond argument and we will make the Right Law. There is no option."
This then hits head on with other modern doctrines:
- Things that make you feel bad are bad. - Popular Sovereignty - Democracy is the ultimate arbiter.
Especially the second. Screaming at people that "You must like policy X" conflicts strongly with the idea of the Democracy is Ultima Ratio Plebs.
I've come across people who think that Switzerland isn't a Proper Democracy - because they can change *anything* by plebiscite. Rather than having some Philosopher Kings guarding the constitution.
When you combine the above with "You are ancestrally guilty of Y"... well that's a setup for a complete rejection.
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
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.
Starmer tries repeating his statement on Trump but suddenly Enterprise is dropped as a shared value - never a word which sounded right in his mouth anyway.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 2h OK, Trump has won and the GOP will be more powerful than before. Europe should have been preparing for this for years (at least months) but it hasnt.
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.
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.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 2h For the record - I was completely wrong about Kamala Harris. It is heartbreaking that Trump is now the President. https://x.com/RoryStewartUK
Seeing those 2 Rory Stewart remarks in quick succession suggests the thoughts do follow each other, in which case, it wasn't Kamala Harris he was wrong about, it was the American people.
Two nations divided by a common language, as the old saying goes. 'Why can't you be more like us?' sigh exasperated Brits, to which the stock response is, 'If we were more like you we wouldn't have left in the first place'.
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.
Some time ago I did wonder whether Boris's endorsement of Trump might, at least in part, be a hedge against a Trump win. So that there was at least one pro- Ukrainian who might gain an audience. Just a thought.
I quite like Boris (who is a near-neighbour), who is an amiable fellow and good fun, but I don't think he is motivated by many consistent policies, or that Trump will be influenced by him in the slightest.
He has a following, but at the level of Trump? He's also stayed at the periphery since quitting the Commons, out of the game. Hard to make it work, but if Kemi crashes and burns I guess there's opportunity.
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.
538 had 312 - 226 (Which it what it will be) as their most likely individual ECV outcome.
Big + for the model - and it's common sense. The swing states are likely correlated to some degree so them going all one way or another is likely(ish). There's a bit of a gap to Trump's next targets - NH, Maine, Minnesota, VA and so on.
2nd most likely was a Harris sweep of the swing states but not going any further (319 - 219)
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.
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.
Good presentation, but a bad topic. We need to build relationships, which will be difficult and not damage them which she is doing by digging up Labour's problems with Trump for political purposes.
Country before politics during a time which could be difficult.
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.
Europe's defence rests on Poland.
Didn't go so well in 1939....
The Polish analysis of what happened in 1939 and afterwards is that -
1) We need to bind our allies to ourselves, tightly. 2) We need to ally with *everyone* who isn't Russia - hence even the irredentist nationalists in Poland have dropped claims to territory outside their current borders. 3) We need the biggest, best equipped army and airforce in Europe. That way we will be able to defend ourselves - and control defence policy of the Eastern half of the EU.
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.
Some time ago I did wonder whether Boris's endorsement of Trump might, at least in part, be a hedge against a Trump win. So that there was at least one pro- Ukrainian who might gain an audience. Just a thought.
I quite like Boris (who is a near-neighbour), who is an amiable fellow and good fun, but I don't think he is motivated by many consistent policies, or that Trump will be influenced by him in the slightest.
I see two big differences between Trump and Boris:
*) Like him or loathe him, but Boris is intelligent. He may not always use that intelligence well, and make bad decisions because he thinks he is more intelligent than he is (a common trait...), but he is IMV undoubtedly more intelligent than Trump.
*) Trump cares only about Trump. That is first and foremost in his mind. Johnson cares about himself - as most of us do to a certain extent - but he also cares about this country. That may be in a faux-Churchill manner, but it isn't all self-interest. Trump is all self-interest.
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.
So he has (checks clock) 11:45 hours to go until midnight.
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.
Mike Martin, now an MP, put it this way.
If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discour war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
I don't pretend to have the answer in what Ukraine can do, realistically, though I would like to support them not curtail them in their choices, but any answer which is just that peace, that is not fighting, is better, has to answer why didn't everyone just tell them to surrender in that case, if peace is automatically better. I fear they will have to sue for peace (or at least stalemate) sooner rather than later, and people can make sound arguments they should, but there are also sound reasons they shouldn't.
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.
I think such chat is now irrelevant. Democratic post mortems are fairly pointless, until we see what the second Trump administration actually does.
There's no going back to play out an alternate history; that has been obvious since Biden crashed in his debate with Trump. All we can say is that it might have been different.
A Democratic response depends on what Trump does regarding his long list of threats and promises:
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...
For a start.
Democrats worrying about might-have-beens is an utter irrelevancy for the US, and that applies even more so to Europe.
So to be charitable to Badenoch that… wasn’t great. Needs to be quicker on her feet and sharper in her messaging. She allowed Starmer lots of easy get-outs there.
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.
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.
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.
I'd characterise it as bad ideas, well presented. She's certainly gone full Trump. I think that's a mistake, feels like the goal was a gotcha at PMQs not the national interest. If she thinks that Bidenomics means high deficits I'm not sure she's going to like Trump fiscal policy.
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.
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.
Europe's defence rests on Poland.
Didn't go so well in 1939....
Rather better though against invasion by Russians in 1919-20.
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.
So to be charitable to Badenoch that… wasn’t great. Needs to be quicker on her feet and sharper in her messaging. She allowed Starmer lots of easy get-outs there.
I thought she was very different and assured and is the best leader for the conservative party
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.
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.
I don't think so, because doing so would be: unpopular unfashionable impose short term costs only deliver benefits decades into the future against an unmeasurable counterfactual.
You can manage a couple of these in a democracy with a following wind, but all four is very hard.
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).
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.
Why do you say people have sat on their hands?
I thought we were still expecting turnout to be up on 2020.
For Harris. Biden got what 80 million votes? She’s not going to be anywhere near that is she?
I think it's more likely that there are plenty of people who voted Biden in 2020 and now Trump in 2024.
I think there are still a lot of votes left to count. No idea if Harris will make it to 80 million, but if she doesn't it won't be because of differential turnout.
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...
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.
Why do you say people have sat on their hands?
I thought we were still expecting turnout to be up on 2020.
For Harris. Biden got what 80 million votes? She’s not going to be anywhere near that is she?
I think it's more likely that there are plenty of people who voted Biden in 2020 and now Trump in 2024.
I think there are still a lot of votes left to count. No idea if Harris will make it to 80 million, but if she doesn't it won't be because of differential turnout.
Well that’s even worse for her then.
These people really must feel the US has gone backwards under Biden.
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.
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.
Russia's position is not that strong. Why else do they need North Korean soldiers? Their economy has started displaying red warning signs again. A more wholehearted support for Ukraine with proper long range strike capability would have us in a better position now. It's not that Trump wants peace. It's that he seems happy to negotiate it on Putin's terms.
I'd characterise it as bad ideas, well presented. She's certainly gone full Trump. I think that's a mistake, feels like the goal was a gotcha at PMQs not the national interest. If she thinks that Bidenomics means high deficits I'm not sure she's going to like Trump fiscal policy.
Being nakedly Pro-Trump is quite a hostage to fortune. Our next election is after the next POTUS one.
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.
I think such chat is now irrelevant. Democratic post mortems are fairly pointless, until we see what the second Trump administration actually does.
There's no going back to play out an alternate history; that has been obvious since Biden crashed in his debate with Trump. All we can say is that it might have been different.
A Democratic response depends on what Trump does regarding his long list of threats and promises:
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...
For a start.
Democrats worrying about might-have-beens is an utter irrelevancy for the US, and that applies even more so to Europe.
Trump doesn't become President until late January. There's plenty of time to work out mistakes made in the past, in the hope of not repeating them, before dealing with whatever Trump does.
Also, all our chat on here is irrelevant, except insofar as it helps people make better betting decisions.
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...
Election's over, I think we can move on from the childish end of Democracy crap.
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.
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.
So to be charitable to Badenoch that… wasn’t great. Needs to be quicker on her feet and sharper in her messaging. She allowed Starmer lots of easy get-outs there.
I thought she was very different and assured and is the best leader for the conservative party
I thought she was quite nervous actually, and let the occasion get to her rather than responding to Starmer’s quite weak responses. But it is her first go.
Can I check if it is OK to mention that UK 10 year gilts hit a new 12 month high today, when our borrowing is increasing dramatically? I know that some, like that Abojizza bloke, think these things should be mentioned (even though all news outlets covered this).
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.
The classic authoritarian approach thesedays is adopt a new constitution so that it resets your terms. I don't think even Trump would care to try that, and he won't have a need to anyway - they aren't going to be restarting his legal cases in 4 years time.
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.
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.
I think what they need is essentially a young “red” democrat.
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.
Best to wait until one surfaces by excelling at the job, rather than by balancing a ticket.
Another marginal crumb of comfort, which I suspect is only of interest to a couple of us so far, is that in a week's time there are scheduled to be two congressional hearings into the unusual UAPs goings-on above several US airbases this year.
As several, but not all, of the politicians involved are Trump-aligned Republicans, that might help the process; although the fact that they are doesn't necessarily invalidate it.
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.
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".
Can I check if it is OK to mention that UK 10 year gilts hit a new 12 month high today, when our borrowing is increasing dramatically? I know that some, like that Abojizza bloke, think these things should be mentioned (even though all news outlets covered this).
Hoo boy am I glad I fixed the mortgage at 3.79%. As a plus the pension is getting boosted by the equities rally and I should be able to enjoy higher rates on my savings for longer .
Hopefully the 5 YR comes down in 5 yrs time. But yes this isn't good news for Starmer.
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.
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.
I would not disagree, But, policymakers might well do, if they consider it's the only way for their societies to remain viable.
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.
Russia's position is not that strong. Why else do they need North Korean soldiers? Their economy has started displaying red warning signs again. A more wholehearted support for Ukraine with proper long range strike capability would have us in a better position now. It's not that Trump wants peace. It's that he seems happy to negotiate it on Putin's terms.
And you know this, how?
Do you think you, Frank Booth (or whoever tf) is uniquely placed, over the Pentagon, say, to assess who is in what position to do and agree to what.
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.
Zelensky got in early lol, because he well had to.
Natasha Clark is with TSE., she's baffled Badenoch went on herTrump escapade. Clark who is normally pro -Conservative was much happier with Ed's intervention.
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.
Mike Martin, now an MP, put it this way.
If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discour war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
I don't pretend to have the answer in what Ukraine can do, realistically, though I would like to support them not curtail them in their choices, but any answer which is just that peace, that is not fighting, is better, has to answer why didn't everyone just tell them to surrender in that case, if peace is automatically better. I fear they will have to sue for peace (or at least stalemate) sooner rather than later, and people can make sound arguments they should, but there are also sound reasons they shouldn't.
Comments
And all after giving @MarqueeMark a hard time over getting the election wrong. Any hypocrisy there maybe?
I was on board with socialism liberalism until the Noughties; its overreach and failure to respond to electoral concerns might drive its downfall.
This then hits head on with other modern doctrines:
- Things that make you feel bad are bad.
- Popular Sovereignty - Democracy is the ultimate arbiter.
Especially the second. Screaming at people that "You must like policy X" conflicts strongly with the idea of the Democracy is Ultima Ratio Plebs.
I've come across people who think that Switzerland isn't a Proper Democracy - because they can change *anything* by plebiscite. Rather than having some Philosopher Kings guarding the constitution.
When you combine the above with "You are ancestrally guilty of Y"... well that's a setup for a complete rejection.
Which means I'll probably now get 3 copies from different people.
Phillips P. OBrien
@PhillipsPOBrien
·
2h
OK, Trump has won and the GOP will be more powerful than before. Europe should have been preparing for this for years (at least months) but it hasnt.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1854095432063869267
I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.
I am not sure she heeded TSE's earlier advice.
Maybe it is my bias, but she doesn't inspire me as she does the PB Tories.
I thought we were still expecting turnout to be up on 2020.
Big + for the model - and it's common sense. The swing states are likely correlated to some degree so them going all one way or another is likely(ish). There's a bit of a gap to Trump's next targets - NH, Maine, Minnesota, VA and so on.
2nd most likely was a Harris sweep of the swing states but not going any further (319 - 219)
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.
Country before politics during a time which could be difficult.
1) We need to bind our allies to ourselves, tightly.
2) We need to ally with *everyone* who isn't Russia - hence even the irredentist nationalists in Poland have dropped claims to territory outside their current borders.
3) We need the biggest, best equipped army and airforce in Europe. That way we will be able to defend ourselves - and control defence policy of the Eastern half of the EU.
*) Like him or loathe him, but Boris is intelligent. He may not always use that intelligence well, and make bad decisions because he thinks he is more intelligent than he is (a common trait...), but he is IMV undoubtedly more intelligent than Trump.
*) Trump cares only about Trump. That is first and foremost in his mind. Johnson cares about himself - as most of us do to a certain extent - but he also cares about this country. That may be in a faux-Churchill manner, but it isn't all self-interest. Trump is all self-interest.
Will he turn into a pumpkin?
Kemi. Not Kamala.
If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discour war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
I don't pretend to have the answer in what Ukraine can do, realistically, though I would like to support them not curtail them in their choices, but any answer which is just that peace, that is not fighting, is better, has to answer why didn't everyone just tell them to surrender in that case, if peace is automatically better. I fear they will have to sue for peace (or at least stalemate) sooner rather than later, and people can make sound arguments they should, but there are also sound reasons they shouldn't.
Democratic post mortems are fairly pointless, until we see what the second Trump administration actually does.
There's no going back to play out an alternate history; that has been obvious since Biden crashed in his debate with Trump. All we can say is that it might have been different.
A Democratic response depends on what Trump does regarding his long list of threats and promises:
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...
For a start.
Democrats worrying about might-have-beens is an utter irrelevancy for the US, and that applies even more so to Europe.
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
She's certainly gone full Trump. I think that's a mistake, feels like the goal was a gotcha at PMQs not the national interest.
If she thinks that Bidenomics means high deficits I'm not sure she's going to like Trump fiscal policy.
Owen Jones
@owenjonesjourno
·
4h
I’m going back to my hotel in New York.
With a Muslim Pakistani American cab driver… who voted for Donald Trump because “the prices were too high” under Biden
https://x.com/owenjonesjourno
unpopular
unfashionable
impose short term costs
only deliver benefits decades into the future against an unmeasurable counterfactual.
You can manage a couple of these in a democracy with a following wind, but all four is very hard.
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).
I think there are still a lot of votes left to count. No idea if Harris will make it to 80 million, but if she doesn't it won't be because of differential turnout.
These people really must feel the US has gone backwards under Biden.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/
Also, all our chat on here is irrelevant, except insofar as it helps people make better betting decisions.
But the former will be the easier comfort blanket to cling to.
He will find a way.
And is she really advocating Trumponomics ?
Any politician who says, all the time, 'We will make the tough decisions", is incapable of making a decision.
As several, but not all, of the politicians involved are Trump-aligned Republicans, that might help the process; although the fact that they are doesn't necessarily invalidate it.
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".
Hopefully the 5 YR comes down in 5 yrs time. But yes this isn't good news for Starmer.
Do you think you, Frank Booth (or whoever tf) is uniquely placed, over the Pentagon, say, to assess who is in what position to do and agree to what.
Tbf to Starmer he did too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Martin_(British_politician)
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102207693/2013_Martin_Michael_1070992_ethesis.pdf