Going for the pro Trump UK voters was courageous from Badenoch – politicalbetting.com
Today was Kemi Badenoch’s first PMQs as leader of the opposition and her choice of topic was a bit of a dud going after David Lammy for his past comments about Donald Trump.
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
If the ball was to slip out the back of the scrum....
Actually the real question is does Boris want to give up earning millions for doing buttons. What would Mrs Johnson have to say about that?
Somebody who I know who also knows Boris Johnson said that Boris Johnson was too lazy to be PM will be even more unsuited to be LOTO because you don't have the civil service to help you and Boris knows it.
Despite some brave words from the PB Tories, a poor start for Badenoch at PMQs but she has plenty of time to improve. I mean, William Hague consistently performed well at PMQs much good it did him at the election.
As I said earlier, the rhetoric of campaigning, the words used to galvanise the faithful at rallies, the promises and pledges at debates mean little faced with the reality of Government.
Even if Trump and the GOP get the clean sweep, they will still face the same problems and they'll have no one but themselves to blame if they don't succeed or at least make headway on some of their pledges.
Badenoch was quite assured I thought and is a fluent speaker but content-wise she was a flop. Starmer was the clear winner from the exchanges.
She's a bluffer, I've dealt with them my entire professional life, no matter how assured they are they eventually get caught out such as her defence lie.
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible, especially after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
Johnson would need to be an MP. But everyone would know the only reason he would want to come back is in order to be Tory leader once more. Given that, why would Badenoch (or whoever succeeds her) allow him to stand in the first place?
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible, especially after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
Johnson would need to be an MP. But everyone would know the only reason he would want to come back is in order to be Tory leader once more. Given that, why would Badenoch (or whoever succeeds her) allow him to stand in the first place?
Indeed! It's very unlikely that Boris will return.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
If the ball was to slip out the back of the scrum....
Actually the real question is does Boris want to give up earning millions for doing buttons. What would Mrs Johnson have to say about that?
Somebody who I know who also knows Boris Johnson said that Boris Johnson was too lazy to be PM will be even more unsuited to be LOTO because you don't have the civil service to help you and Boris knows it.
OTOH being LOTO is about inventing silly arguments and gimmicks to stay relevant, attacking the Government even when you don't fundamentally disagree with them and trying to please as wide a group of people without worrying too much about consistency, all of which are his strong points.
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
If the ball was to slip out the back of the scrum....
Actually the real question is does Boris want to give up earning millions for doing buttons. What would Mrs Johnson have to say about that?
Somebody who I know who also knows Boris Johnson said that Boris Johnson was too lazy to be PM will be even more unsuited to be LOTO because you don't have the civil service to help you and Boris knows it.
If Big Dom is to be believed, Boris basically said to him, Starmer is so rubbish, so I won't need to do anything this parliament...and Mrs Johnson also has a big say in what Boris does and who he surrounds himself with.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
Why would Badenoch say that about defence? It was in the Budget loads of times. Very odd.
Because she is not as well versed in her brief as PB Tories would have you believe. I suppose things can only get better, and it could have been worse. Imagine if BJ had won.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
1) It doesn't have Trump's branding over it 2) The Republicans don't like it for reasons unknown
So they will bin it and replace it with something identical that Trump can claim as his own...
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
If the ball was to slip out the back of the scrum....
Actually the real question is does Boris want to give up earning millions for doing buttons. What would Mrs Johnson have to say about that?
Somebody who I know who also knows Boris Johnson said that Boris Johnson was too lazy to be PM will be even more unsuited to be LOTO because you don't have the civil service to help you and Boris knows it.
OTOH being LOTO is about inventing silly arguments and gimmicks to stay relevant, attacking the Government even when you don't fundamentally disagree with them and trying to please as wide a group of people without worrying too much about consistency, all of which are his strong points.
So he might surprise on the upside.
Its a balance. You want people to know who you are, but if you overdo the I object to everything you can look like a twat.
Also when the government is screwing up, and the ball starts rolling, it is often better not to say too much. The whole freebies, the Tories basically said nothing, which was very wise (as they obviously take freebies too).
What you need to have done is position yourself as a credible alternative when the public decides that the current mob is useless.....and that is Boris problem....
Thought it would be worth an update on the ballot measures on abortion:
Arizona pro abortion - yes - 62% - passed Colorado pro abortion - yes - 62% - passed Florida pro abortion - yes - 57% - failed as needed to get to 60% Maryland pro abortion - yes - 74% - passed Missouri pro abortion - yes - 52% - passed Montana pro abortion - yes - 57% - passed Nebraska pro abortion - yes - 49% - not finalised Nebraska anti abortion - yes - 55% - not finalised Nevada pro abortion - yes - 63% - passed New York pro abortion - yes - 62% - passed South Dakota pro abortion - yes - 41% - failed
Shows that pro abortion measures are popular even in many red states but that it didn't necessarily translate to voters also then picking Harris
The Dakotas voted no to legalising marijuana. A majority voted yes in Florida but it was less than 60% so failed.
Another post has convinced me on this.
It seems like Harris's team believed abortion would win it for them. But voters went, I can vote Trump on the economy and also just vote for abortion in my state anyway.
Badenoch was quite assured I thought and is a fluent speaker but content-wise she was a flop. Starmer was the clear winner from the exchanges.
She's a bluffer, I've dealt with them my entire professional life, no matter how assured they are they eventually get caught out such as her defence lie.
What do you mean by bluffer?
She seems a serious thinker, quoting the likes of Thomas Sowell, Roger Scruton, Daron Acemoglu, Jonathan Haidt. I question whether she can be bothered with the detail.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
Where Badenoch needs to improve is turning criticism into a message.
E.g today, on Lammy, the message is - this might undermine our relations with the US and therefore it was a risk appointing Lammy as FS, ergo Starmer has bad judgement.
She didn’t join the dots and think on her feet. Too scripted (which then backfired when she was then accused of reading from a script). She actually is usually confident and articulate when she’s not reading from a script. I suspect she over-prepared today, and she lose some of her incisiveness as a result.
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
If the ball was to slip out the back of the scrum....
Actually the real question is does Boris want to give up earning millions for doing buttons. What would Mrs Johnson have to say about that?
Somebody who I know who also knows Boris Johnson said that Boris Johnson was too lazy to be PM will be even more unsuited to be LOTO because you don't have the civil service to help you and Boris knows it.
Boris likes to cosplay Churchill - but the reality is that he's much more like a half-arsed Lloyd George.
I can imagine the comparison continuing to hold true through his later years, with a series of increasingly-delusional attempts to regain power or even just influence.
Lets hope he skips the sucking up to foreign fascists stage before he finally descends into senility...
You don't have to be a Trump fan to realise that Lammy's comments were unwise at best.
And I can't imagine that many floating voters will think today "oh, it's Badenoch's first PMQs, I must watch that".
Lammy's comments were dumb as hell.
But then I'd not have had him as FS.
Nor would I.
But Starmer did, and so it's fair game to comment, especially when today PMQs is probably only getting onto the news if it links into the Trump coverage that will dominate the day.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
Because it was Bidens flagship. I suspect a rebrand and quietly keep something similar.
Badenoch was quite assured I thought and is a fluent speaker but content-wise she was a flop. Starmer was the clear winner from the exchanges.
She's a bluffer, I've dealt with them my entire professional life, no matter how assured they are they eventually get caught out such as her defence lie.
What do you mean by bluffer?
She seems a serious thinker, quoting the likes of Thomas Sowell, Roger Scruton, Daron Acemoglu, Jonathan Haidt. I question whether she can be bothered with the detail.
You don't have to be a Trump fan to realise that Lammy's comments were unwise at best.
And I can't imagine that many floating voters will think today "oh, it's Badenoch's first PMQs, I must watch that".
Lammy's comments were dumb as hell.
But then I'd not have had him as FS.
Nor would I.
But Starmer did, and so it's fair game to comment, especially when today PMQs is probably only getting onto the news if it links into the Trump coverage that will dominate the day.
I didn't make a comment on it being fair game or not.
Badenoch can say what she wants - but she's clearly not yet aiming for younger/centrist voters under the age of 50.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.
Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.
Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.
Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?
He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.
From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.
He will find a way.
One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.
It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.
Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.
Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court. Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.
Mass deportations; Massive tariffs; Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation); Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine; Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan; Ditto NATO; Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents; Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state; Repeal of Obamacare; Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
Because Biden did it.
It's not clear what Trump will actually do in government - which is the point of the list.
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
If the ball was to slip out the back of the scrum....
Actually the real question is does Boris want to give up earning millions for doing buttons. What would Mrs Johnson have to say about that?
Somebody who I know who also knows Boris Johnson said that Boris Johnson was too lazy to be PM will be even more unsuited to be LOTO because you don't have the civil service to help you and Boris knows it.
Badenoch was quite assured I thought and is a fluent speaker but content-wise she was a flop. Starmer was the clear winner from the exchanges.
She's a bluffer, I've dealt with them my entire professional life, no matter how assured they are they eventually get caught out such as her defence lie.
Being rumbled within ten minutes suggests bluffing isn't a strong suit either.
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
I was happy with Badenoch's first outing and Lammy was an obvious target
I am surprised at her defence error, but a full pile on her on her first outing seems a bit over the top not least as there is only one subject on in the media and indeed Sky switched away from from PMQs when Badenoch Starmer moment concluded
I am also aware many are shocked at what has happened and angry but then democracy has spoken and Trump is king of all he surveys for the next 4 years
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
How are they going to quantify it? Ask all the people that watched it how they voted?
Badenoch was quite assured I thought and is a fluent speaker but content-wise she was a flop. Starmer was the clear winner from the exchanges.
She's a bluffer, I've dealt with them my entire professional life, no matter how assured they are they eventually get caught out such as her defence lie.
Her question about continuing trade talks with America was mildly hilarious given her complete lack of interest in the subject when she was SoS for Trade. Not sure it was particularly wise for her to be drawing attention to her own past failures in her first PMQs...
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
Yes, I know a few political strategists, the old strategies don't work, content has to be memetastic.
Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
Yes, I know a few political strategists, the old strategies don't work, content has to be memetastic.
Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
The thing about a lot of these podcast, particularly the younger focused ones i.e. not Rogan, they are experts at clipping stuff and getting it trending on TikTok / YouTube shorts.
You don't have to be a Trump fan to realise that Lammy's comments were unwise at best.
And I can't imagine that many floating voters will think today "oh, it's Badenoch's first PMQs, I must watch that".
Lammy's comments were dumb as hell.
But then I'd not have had him as FS.
Nor would I.
But Starmer did, and so it's fair game to comment, especially when today PMQs is probably only getting onto the news if it links into the Trump coverage that will dominate the day.
I didn't make a comment on it being fair game or not.
Badenoch can say what she wants - but she's clearly not yet aiming for younger/centrist voters under the age of 50.
Right, but there's no reason why she should in her first PMQs. She'll need to do so relatively soon, but today there was only ever one topic on the agenda. And given that all governments get examples of their supporters saying silly things, if she can establish a pattern of Starmer not distancing himself from said silly things, some of them will be on topics that appeal to said younger/centrist voters.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
As noted on the last thread: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvzjr8w9mxo ..Firstly, the dinner the prime minister and the Foreign Secretary David Lammy had with the president-elect at Trump Tower in New York in September. Trump, sources say, re-arranged his schedule to find time to meet Starmer and Lammy, which was seen as a “good gesture” with the soon to be president. Secondly, the prime minister managed an early call with Donald Trump shortly after he survived an assassination attempt. Both opportunities to talk to Trump are put down to an impressive diplomatic operation at the British Embassy in Washington – led by the ambassador Dame Karen Pierce. Those close to the foreign secretary say he has also been putting in the leg work for months – including before the election – to get to know and to understand Donald Trump and those around him. On a visit to Washington DC in May, he pointed out in a speech that it was his seventh visit to the US capital in three and a half years. “I’ve been to the United States more times than I’ve been to France. I’ve lived in America, I’ve studied in America, I’ve got family in America. My father is buried in Texas,” he told an audience at the Hudson Institute. He described Trump as “often misunderstood,” referred to the Vice President Elect JD Vance as “my friend” and added “I totally get the agenda…that drives America First,” a reference to the phrase Trump used in his Inauguration Speech in January 2017 to spell out that “every decision…will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”..
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
Yes, I know a few political strategists, the old strategies don't work, content has to be memetastic.
Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
The thing about a lot of these podcast, particularly the younger focused ones i.e. not Rogan, they are experts at clipping stuff and getting it trending on TikTok / YouTube shorts.
Interesting if they have finally found a way to turn it into actual votes.
Labour had a load of success with viral videos during GE2017 and GE2019 and it didn't make much difference in the end. Obviously the US is different but I am always sceptical of saying engagement = votes
You don't have to be a Trump fan to realise that Lammy's comments were unwise at best.
And I can't imagine that many floating voters will think today "oh, it's Badenoch's first PMQs, I must watch that".
Well both those are true, but was it wise:
a) She has just highlighted the Labour's government issues with Trump who is known to hold a grudge and undone Starmer's congratulation letter. If we are going to have decent relations with Trump was that a good idea to do this. Country before politics; she could have done a lot of harm if and when this gets back to him. What will it do to our relationship with him.
b) As pointed out in the header and me on the last thread only Reform voters agree with her on Trump so she is alienating a lot of voters across all other parties. OK not by just this, but presumably she will follow it up with other statements if she is going to pitch the Tories along Trump lines. I'm sure the Tory candidates in the County elections in the home counties will appreciate the tack she has taken.
c) It was her first PMQs. She could have gone down a non party line. As several of us suggested Ukraine would have been a good pitch, particularly as it is important for Europe, particularly now, so some relevant questions could have been asked. She presented well so she could have got some good headlines across the political spectrum rather than some politically biased stuff on the news tonight.
Bitcoin hit an all time high this morning. Clearly the crypto bros are excited, how long will that excitement last?
It's something I generally avoid discussing on here, because there's so little knowledge of it on this forum that I tend to keep my conversations about it to other forums more suited to the debate.
But one of the reasons I didn't bet on Potus 2024 was that I noticed several weeks ago that btc was functioning as a proxy bet on a Trump victory, i.e. every time it looked more likely, bitcoin went up and vice versa. And the amount I have in my coinbase account is more than enough exposure to that market - indeed, I'm quite a few quid "up" this morning without placing a single bet. More so than if I'd punted a few hundred quid on Trump at 1.6, with much lower downside risk if he didn't win.
So it was always clear it was going to rocket after a Trump victory. Trump spoke at the bitcoin conference and despite clearly not understanding it as a technology, said all the things the bitcoin bros wanted to hear on regulation and adoption.
Overall, I suspect price was waiting for certainty before moving, leading to a lot of traders sitting out in cash the last few weeks now jumping back in. I suspect the bitcoin bros will be disappointed, Trump doesn't care about it one way or the other. But he did make the effort to court that market in ways Kamala didn't. Worth noting that 40% of Americans own crypto in one form or another, so it's not exactly a niche audience.
The big news in the space is of course the ETFs gobbling up everything in sight. Blackrock and Fidelity betwen them now custody $36359m of bitcoin on behalf of their clients. While Joe Sixpack buyinng a few hundred bucks in Coinbase is nowhere to be seen. The typical buyer in 2024 has been a rich investor looking to allocate a % of their portfolio via an ETF, which OG whales have been selling into, heavily - hence the price not being far higher than it is.
My prediction is that if the halving doesn't lead to a significant price rise over the next six months as it has in the past two cycles, it will be seen as a bit of a busted flush and slowly fade away. If on the other hand it even reaches a multiple of 10x from the previous cycle low (currently at a multiple of 5x, vs peak multiples of 100x and 20x in 2017 and 2021 respectively), it's hold on to your hats time.
One other noteworthy point: Trump promised to pardon Ross Ulbricht. A good measure of how much Trump cares about the bitcoin bros will be whether he comes good on that promise or not. My guess is - not.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
Do you feel the same about those that went after Johnson after his comments re that Iranian woman?
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
EEA or similar might be doable, can’t see full EU membership being on the agenda for a decade or more.
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
Yes, I know a few political strategists, the old strategies don't work, content has to be memetastic.
Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
There were plenty of memes going round of photos of gas stations' prices from four years ago.
Sure, there were always comments pointing out the different between them and now, but many fewer people read the comments.
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
Yes, I know a few political strategists, the old strategies don't work, content has to be memetastic.
Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
The thing about a lot of these podcast, particularly the younger focused ones i.e. not Rogan, they are experts at clipping stuff and getting it trending on TikTok / YouTube shorts.
Interesting if they have finally found a way to turn it into actual votes.
Labour had a load of success with viral videos during GE2017 and GE2019 and it didn't make much difference in the end. Obviously the US is different but I am always sceptical of saying engagement = votes
I think one aspect is that the Democrats and CNN / MSNBC / etc keep saying he is literal Orange Hitler. But all these podcasts he doesn't come across like that, so I think that is probably the effective bit, that able to change perceptions. All that experience with the Apprentice, he knows how to play that game e.g. when he went on Rogan, he was engaging about MMA / UFC, well a big proportion of male 19-30s in the US love their MMA.
And because its all clipped, any in depth chatter about tariff policy (and all the nonsense he was talking), nobody watches that bit.
I don't think any of the Labour memes about Tories changed any perceptions. Rishi is extremely rich and so rather out of touch, I mean I don't think anybody is suddenly realising that might be the case.
I'll say it again, Trump's ads were much better. Trump - rockets, military, selling the American dream. Harris - if you love your daughter you'll vote D. No wonder she made no inroads with men whatsoever.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
I don't agree with that. Lammy is fair game.
What was silly was signalling support for Trump in your first PMQs, even if indirectly. That coupled with the defence mistake makes her sound like an alt-right troll account spouting off on twitter.
She could have gone on Ukraine or even a brutal attack on employer NICs hitting "working people". Or more on the farmers stuff. Or winter fuel payment. Loads of alternatives.
Just watched the full Kemi/Keir exchanges. Whilst she's hardly IDS, one can't help feeling Cleverly would have done rather better today delivering the exact same questions. Though no doubt would have framed better ones on the same subjects.
Sigh....
I guess his time may still come in 18 months or so.
I’m sure you’re very worried about what Donald Trump’s election will mean – for the future of the world, and for the values we all hold dear. I’m worried too.
But you have the power to do something about it. Together, our party will stand up to Donald Trump’s nasty, divisive politics and defend our values of decency, compassion and equality – at home and around the world.
So do something today: ask five friends to join the Liberal Democrats.
Send them this link and tell them they can be part of the liberal, progressive and internationalist movement the world needs now more than ever:
www.libdems.org.uk/join
Because the next President of the United States is a dangerous demagogue, who actively undermines the rule of law, human rights, international trade, climate action, global security… the list goes on.
Millions of Americans – especially women and minorities – will be incredibly fearful about what comes next. We stand with them.
Families across the UK will also be worrying about the damage Trump will do to our economy and our national security, given his record of starting trade wars, undermining NATO and emboldening tyrants like Putin.
That makes fixing the UK’s broken relationship with the EU even more urgent than it already was. We must strengthen trade and defence cooperation across Europe to help protect ourselves from the damage Trump will do. And only the Liberal Democrats are fighting to do that.
This is not the result any of us wanted to see. And I know it’ll take a while to come to terms with it. But I also know we won’t let that stop us from standing up proudly for our liberal values.
Best wishes at a very difficult time,
Ed Davey MP Leader of the Liberal Democrats (he/him)
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
Why do we have ride the coattails of anyone?
Why not just take an independent stand in our own national interest?
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
I doubt DJT was tuned into PMQs today somehow.
The reality is that Lammy should have been ruled out of consideration for Foreign Secretary because of his track record of saying stupid things like his comments on DJT. This mess was entirely predictable when he was appointed, and it reflects very badly on Starmer that he gave him the job anyway.
It's entirely fair game for Kemmi to point this out.
You don't have to be a Trump fan to realise that Lammy's comments were unwise at best.
And I can't imagine that many floating voters will think today "oh, it's Badenoch's first PMQs, I must watch that".
Well both those are true, but was it wise:
a) She has just highlighted the Labour's government issues with Trump who is known to hold a grudge and undone Starmer's congratulation letter. If we are going to have decent relations with Trump was that a good idea to do this. Country before politics; she could have done a lot of harm if and when this gets back to him. What will it do to our relationship with him.
b) As pointed out in the header and me on the last thread only Reform voters agree with her on Trump so she is alienating a lot of voters across all other parties. OK not by just this, but presumably she will follow it up with other statements if she is going to pitch the Tories along Trump lines. I'm sure the Tory candidates in the County elections in the home counties will appreciate the tack she has taken.
c) It was her first PMQs. She could have gone down a non party line. As several of us suggested Ukraine would have been a good pitch, particularly as it is important for Europe, particularly now, so some relevant questions could have been asked. She presented well so she could have got some good headlines across the political spectrum rather than some politically biased stuff on the news tonight.
a) Sure, but Trump holds grudges to the extent that he won't have forgiven or forgotten what Lammy said.
b) That's too big a "presumably" to extrapolate from one PMQs.
C) She said something that will get on the news tonight and given that said news will be dominated by Trump, that's presumably what she was aiming at.
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
EEA or similar might be doable, can’t see full EU membership being on the agenda for a decade or more.
EEA would be the worst of both worlds: subject to the EU's whims and having to pay their idiotic fees but with no ability to influence anything.
Full membership would involve committing to the Euro, which not even Tony Blair in his prime could get through and Starmer is no Blair.
So I don't see either of those happening in the near future.
Nor do I think either are particularly necessary. We face plenty of challenges, but they are internally generated, mostly due to a rapacious, underperforming government that sees itself as the solution rather than the problem. Pointlessly reopening the European issue would actually distract us from addressing those.
You don't have to be a Trump fan to realise that Lammy's comments were unwise at best.
And I can't imagine that many floating voters will think today "oh, it's Badenoch's first PMQs, I must watch that".
Well both those are true, but was it wise:
a) She has just highlighted the Labour's government issues with Trump who is known to hold a grudge and undone Starmer's congratulation letter. If we are going to have decent relations with Trump was that a good idea to do this. Country before politics; she could have done a lot of harm if and when this gets back to him. What will it do to our relationship with him.
b) As pointed out in the header and me on the last thread only Reform voters agree with her on Trump so she is alienating a lot of voters across all other parties. OK not by just this, but presumably she will follow it up with other statements if she is going to pitch the Tories along Trump lines. I'm sure the Tory candidates in the County elections in the home counties will appreciate the tack she has taken.
c) It was her first PMQs. She could have gone down a non party line. As several of us suggested Ukraine would have been a good pitch, particularly as it is important for Europe, particularly now, so some relevant questions could have been asked. She presented well so she could have got some good headlines across the political spectrum rather than some politically biased stuff on the news tonight.
I just disagree
There is only one topic today snd that is Trump and highlighting Lammys toxic words is just politics
Also it is worth considering just how this may change the narrative in UK politics and how Starmer deals with it as his party are so very anti Trump
Bitcoin hit an all time high this morning. Clearly the crypto bros are excited, how long will that excitement last?
It's something I generally avoid discussing on here, because there's so little knowledge of it on this forum that I tend to keep my conversations about it to other forums more suited to the debate.
But one of the reasons I didn't bet on Potus 2024 was that I noticed several weeks ago that btc was functioning as a proxy bet on a Trump victory, i.e. every time it looked more likely, bitcoin went up and vice versa. And the amount I have in my coinbase account is more than enough exposure to that market - indeed, I'm quite a few quid "up" this morning without placing a single bet. More so than if I'd punted a few hundred quid on Trump at 1.6, with much lower downside risk if he didn't win.
So it was always clear it was going to rocket after a Trump victory. Trump spoke at the bitcoin conference and despite clearly not understanding it as a technology, said all the things the bitcoin bros wanted to hear on regulation and adoption.
Overall, I suspect price was waiting for certainty before moving, leading to a lot of traders sitting out in cash the last few weeks now jumping back in. I suspect the bitcoin bros will be disappointed, Trump doesn't care about it one way or the other. But he did make the effort to court that market in ways Kamala didn't. Worth noting that 40% of Americans own crypto in one form or another, so it's not exactly a niche audience.
The big news in the space is of course the ETFs gobbling up everything in sight. Blackrock and Fidelity betwen them now custody $36359m of bitcoin on behalf of their clients. While Joe Sixpack buyinng a few hundred bucks in Coinbase is nowhere to be seen. The typical buyer in 2024 has been a rich investor looking to allocate a % of their portfolio via an ETF, which OG whales have been selling into, heavily - hence the price not being far higher than it is.
My prediction is that if the halving doesn't lead to a significant price rise over the next six months as it has in the past two cycles, it will be seen as a bit of a busted flush and slowly fade away. If on the other hand it even reaches a multiple of 10x from the previous cycle low (currently at a multiple of 5x, vs peak multiples of 100x and 20x in 2017 and 2021 respectively), it's hold on to your hats time.
One other noteworthy point: Trump promised to pardon Ross Ulbricht. A good measure of how much Trump cares about the bitcoin bros will be whether he comes good on that promise or not. My guess is - not.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
I don't agree with that. Lammy is fair game.
What was silly was signalling support for Trump in your first PMQs, even if indirectly. That coupled with the defence mistake makes her sound like an alt-right troll account spouting off on twitter.
She could have gone on Ukraine or even a brutal attack on employer NICs hitting "working people". Or more on the farmers stuff. Or winter fuel payment. Loads of alternatives.
Oh, it's fair game; I just think it miscalculated. Labour have years in office ahead of them. There are plenty of other things to attack them on; this is one which might help the Tories but it certainly doesn't help the UK.
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
I would expect most of the population to do a Brenda from Bristol.
Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?
It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
Yes, I know a few political strategists, the old strategies don't work, content has to be memetastic.
Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
The thing about a lot of these podcast, particularly the younger focused ones i.e. not Rogan, they are experts at clipping stuff and getting it trending on TikTok / YouTube shorts.
Interesting if they have finally found a way to turn it into actual votes.
Labour had a load of success with viral videos during GE2017 and GE2019 and it didn't make much difference in the end. Obviously the US is different but I am always sceptical of saying engagement = votes
I think one aspect is that the Democrats and CNN / MSNBC / etc keep saying he is literal Orange Hitler. But all these podcasts he doesn't come across like that, so I think that is probably the effective bit, that able to change perceptions. All that experience with the Apprentice, he knows how to play that game e.g. when he went on Rogan, he was engaging about MMA / UFC, well a big proportion of male 19-30s in the US love their MMA.
And because its all clipped, any in depth chatter about tariff policy (and all the nonsense he was talking), nobody watches that bit.
I don't think any of the Labour memes about Tories changed any perceptions. Rishi is extremely rich and so rather out of touch, I mean I don't think anybody is suddenly realising that might be the case.
I should say, I still think first and overwhelmingly foremost, the economy was what did it for Harris. But the podcasts enabled Trump / Vance to sidestep the MSM and project an alternative version of themselves.
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
Why do we have ride the coattails of anyone?
Why not just take an independent stand in our own national interest?
If the world is spiralling towards beggar-thy-neighbour tariff wars, then taking an independent stand amounts to wearing a "kick me" sign.
Listening to PMWs, I think that both Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch have time to learn, and both are inexperienced.
The most notable thing for me was quite how blunt Keir Starmer was in his comments on Dawn Butler's racist attack on Kemi Badenoch.
I think KB needs to reduce her number of self-trip-ups. I trust that someone on the Labour benches is keeping a list.
I'm surprised the Govt are going quite so softly on the "Conservative Black Hole"; there are all kinds of things which are on top of that which has been identified - starting with the £10bn+ of unfunded compensation.
I’m sure you’re very worried about what Donald Trump’s election will mean – for the future of the world, and for the values we all hold dear. I’m worried too.
But you have the power to do something about it. Together, our party will stand up to Donald Trump’s nasty, divisive politics and defend our values of decency, compassion and equality – at home and around the world.
So do something today: ask five friends to join the Liberal Democrats.
Send them this link and tell them they can be part of the liberal, progressive and internationalist movement the world needs now more than ever:
www.libdems.org.uk/join
Because the next President of the United States is a dangerous demagogue, who actively undermines the rule of law, human rights, international trade, climate action, global security… the list goes on.
Millions of Americans – especially women and minorities – will be incredibly fearful about what comes next. We stand with them.
Families across the UK will also be worrying about the damage Trump will do to our economy and our national security, given his record of starting trade wars, undermining NATO and emboldening tyrants like Putin.
That makes fixing the UK’s broken relationship with the EU even more urgent than it already was. We must strengthen trade and defence cooperation across Europe to help protect ourselves from the damage Trump will do. And only the Liberal Democrats are fighting to do that.
This is not the result any of us wanted to see. And I know it’ll take a while to come to terms with it. But I also know we won’t let that stop us from standing up proudly for our liberal values.
Best wishes at a very difficult time,
Ed Davey MP Leader of the Liberal Democrats (he/him)
Brief return to duty for me. Fairly pleased with my vibe based prediction assuming Michigan does flip along with Nevada and Arizona. Virginia not quite as close as I thought but pleased to see New Hampshire was indeed very competitive and is now the New England swing State. New Jersey also 'much more interesting than expected' as i'd suspected and is now bordering swing state status, New York closer than in a long time but still firmly Dem, but they are going to struggle going forwards with Florida and Texas now looking safe Republican. Minnesota likely flips without Walz, but maybe Shapiro instead would have held Pa. Dems need a wholesale clear out of the old guard of the Biden, Pelosi, Schumer types and to very carefully consider what got them so badly humped this time
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
It was Biden's initiative, so it has to die. To be fair, there's a considerable amount of doubt around the CHIPS act being a useful way to spend what is quite a large amount of money. It is, to a large degree, paying foreign manufacturers to set up in the US because the only indigenous chip manufacturer left is Intel and they're a bit of a basket case.
It's also flawed because it concentrates mostly on semiconductor fabs, but the raw wafers produced by the fabs have to be cut up and the separated dies placed in suitable packaging. That's an increasingly elaborate and difficult job which is not normally done at the fab, but in a another facility. A lot of modern CPUs, FPGAs, etc, actually mount several silicon dies (aka 'chiplets') together on one package, sometimes even stacked on top of each other. That is, if anything, an even larger technical challenge than producing the chips. One of the reasons Intel is in trouble is because their rival AMD has its chips built by TSMC, who are masters at chiplets and die stacking.
The astounding complexity of the electronics supply chain also mutes the effectiveness of this kind of on-shoring process. As car manufacturers found out to their cost all it takes is one $0.20 microcontroller to be unavailable and you have 99.99% finished cars piling up at factories.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
I don't agree with that. Lammy is fair game.
What was silly was signalling support for Trump in your first PMQs, even if indirectly. That coupled with the defence mistake makes her sound like an alt-right troll account spouting off on twitter.
She could have gone on Ukraine or even a brutal attack on employer NICs hitting "working people". Or more on the farmers stuff. Or winter fuel payment. Loads of alternatives.
Ah, I see where the disagreement is. I don't see this in any way as signalling support for Trump. He's won and we probably have to deal with him for four years.
The main question arising from PMQs was what the Speaker was calling her. It started as Badenoch with a short a, and after a couple of questions and presumably a note from the Tory benches, switched to the correct long a. Except he then swallowed the 'enoch' bit and it sounded more like babel than bad'noch.
Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?
It was Biden's initiative, so it has to die. To be fair, there's a considerable amount of doubt around the CHIPS act being a useful way to spend what is quite a large amount of money. It is, to a large degree, paying foreign manufacturers to set up in the US because the only indigenous chip manufacturer left is Intel and they're a bit of a basket case.
It's also flawed because it concentrates mostly on semiconductor fabs, but the raw wafers produced by the fabs have to be cut up and the separated dies placed in suitable packaging. That's an increasingly elaborate and difficult job which is not normally done at the fab, but in a another facility. A lot of modern CPUs, FPGAs, etc, actually mount several silicon dies (aka 'chiplets') together on one package, sometimes even stacked on top of each other. That is, if anything, an even larger technical challenge than producing the chips. One of the reasons Intel is in trouble is because their rival AMD has its chips built by TSMC, who are masters at chiplets and die stacking.
The astounding complexity of the electronics supply chain also mutes the effectiveness of this kind of on-shoring process. As car manufacturers found out to their cost all it takes is one $0.20 microcontroller to be unavailable and you have 99.99% finished cars piling up at factories.
Trump is also a very petty man, that was Biden's flagship policy, so can't be having that. Given Trump is promising this mega tariff trade war, I am not sure he has sat down and carefully analysed the chip making process and all the economic arguments around on-shoring it.
Badenoch was quite assured I thought and is a fluent speaker but content-wise she was a flop. Starmer was the clear winner from the exchanges.
She's a bluffer, I've dealt with them my entire professional life, no matter how assured they are they eventually get caught out such as her defence lie.
What Conservative leader wouldn't you attack that's currently an MP?
I am profoundly depressed by this. And am going to bed. I really worry about Ukraine tonight.
Trump didn't actually do many things between 2016 and 2020, it was mostly all talk.
He did a lot. Re-Negotiated NAFTA, Space Force, moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, menaced the NKoreans, gave Russia free rein, Afghanistan, etc. And in Term II will do a lot more.
Here is a 34minute video rundown of Trump's expected foreign policy in term 2
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
Why do we have ride the coattails of anyone?
Why not just take an independent stand in our own national interest?
If the government can rustle up any more significant cash I'd rather see it paying to upgrade our defences than paying into the EU coffers.
I don't see Trump influencing British public opinion in a way favourable to himself. Neither do I think one could call Kemi's behaviour full Trumpian. She just exposed some embarrassing previous comments by the Foreign Sec. A smidge unpatriotic perhaps.
And undermined his recent strenuous attempts to row back on them. That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
I don't agree with that. Lammy is fair game.
What was silly was signalling support for Trump in your first PMQs, even if indirectly. That coupled with the defence mistake makes her sound like an alt-right troll account spouting off on twitter.
She could have gone on Ukraine or even a brutal attack on employer NICs hitting "working people". Or more on the farmers stuff. Or winter fuel payment. Loads of alternatives.
Oh, it's fair game; I just think it miscalculated. Labour have years in office ahead of them. There are plenty of other things to attack them on; this is one which might help the Tories but it certainly doesn't help the UK.
I don't think it helps the Tories either. She needs to listen to a Cummings figure. Initially I thought her ineffective. On my second watch she is downright poor, and Starmer appears less rubbish. Ed was very effective mind.
Brief return to duty for me. Fairly pleased with my vibe based prediction assuming Michigan does flip along with Nevada and Arizona. Virginia not quite as close as I thought but pleased to see New Hampshire was indeed very competitive and is now the New England swing State. New Jersey also 'much more interesting than expected' as i'd suspected and is now bordering swing state status, New York closer than in a long time but still firmly Dem, but they are going to struggle going forwards with Florida and Texas now looking safe Republican. Minnesota likely flips without Walz, but maybe Shapiro instead would have held Pa. Dems need a wholesale clear out of the old guard of the Biden, Pelosi, Schumer types and to very carefully consider what got them so badly humped this time
Looks as though Slotkin will hold the senate seat, just.
Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
EEA or similar might be doable, can’t see full EU membership being on the agenda for a decade or more.
EEA would be the worst of both worlds: subject to the EU's whims and having to pay their idiotic fees but with no ability to influence anything.
Full membership would involve committing to the Euro, which not even Tony Blair in his prime could get through and Starmer is no Blair.
So I don't see either of those happening in the near future.
Nor do I think either are particularly necessary. We face plenty of challenges, but they are internally generated, mostly due to a rapacious, underperforming government that sees itself as the solution rather than the problem. Pointlessly reopening the European issue would actually distract us from addressing those.
It's almost like a one size fits all model for British-European relations doesn't work.
What so many still fail to realise is that had this been considered seriously before the Brexit vote we never would have Brexiteed, but both sides preferred to ignore it, rather than listen, and try to force a binary choice that they could settle the issue with.
Unfortunately, it didn't go their way. There's a lesson there. One that sadly hasn't been fully learnt yet.
Comments
If we had a Presidential system, then yes. I could see a Boris comeback being possible, especially after what's happened with Trump.
But in a Parliamentary system it's harder for him to return to Parliament and become Con leader and then PM.
I wouldn't rule it out as with Boris Johnson you never rule anything out, but I don't think it's very likely.
Actually the real question is does Boris want to give up earning millions for doing buttons. What would Mrs Johnson have to say about that?
Despite some brave words from the PB Tories, a poor start for Badenoch at PMQs but she has plenty of time to improve. I mean, William Hague consistently performed well at PMQs much good it did him at the election.
As I said earlier, the rhetoric of campaigning, the words used to galvanise the faithful at rallies, the promises and pledges at debates mean little faced with the reality of Government.
Even if Trump and the GOP get the clean sweep, they will still face the same problems and they'll have no one but themselves to blame if they don't succeed or at least make headway on some of their pledges.
And I can't imagine that many floating voters will think today "oh, it's Badenoch's first PMQs, I must watch that".
But then I'd not have had him as FS.
So he might surprise on the upside.
Arizona pro abortion - yes - 62% - passed
Colorado pro abortion - yes - 62% - passed
Florida pro abortion - yes - 57% - failed as needed to get to 60%
Maryland pro abortion - yes - 74% - passed
Missouri pro abortion - yes - 52% - passed
Montana pro abortion - yes - 57% - passed
Nebraska pro abortion - yes - 49% - not finalised
Nebraska anti abortion - yes - 55% - not finalised
Nevada pro abortion - yes - 63% - passed
New York pro abortion - yes - 62% - passed
South Dakota pro abortion - yes - 41% - failed
Shows that pro abortion measures are popular even in many red states but that it didn't necessarily translate to voters also then picking Harris
The Dakotas voted no to legalising marijuana. A majority voted yes in Florida but it was less than 60% so failed.
2) The Republicans don't like it for reasons unknown
So they will bin it and replace it with something identical that Trump can claim as his own...
Also when the government is screwing up, and the ball starts rolling, it is often better not to say too much. The whole freebies, the Tories basically said nothing, which was very wise (as they obviously take freebies too).
What you need to have done is position yourself as a credible alternative when the public decides that the current mob is useless.....and that is Boris problem....
It seems like Harris's team believed abortion would win it for them. But voters went, I can vote Trump on the economy and also just vote for abortion in my state anyway.
She seems a serious thinker, quoting the likes of Thomas Sowell, Roger Scruton, Daron Acemoglu, Jonathan Haidt. I question whether she can be bothered with the detail.
This podcast with Tom McTague was pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov739t36Mpg
E.g today, on Lammy, the message is - this might undermine our relations with the US and therefore it was a risk appointing Lammy as FS, ergo Starmer has bad judgement.
She didn’t join the dots and think on her feet. Too scripted (which then backfired when she was then accused of reading from a script). She actually is usually confident and articulate when she’s not reading from a script. I suspect she over-prepared today, and she lose some of her incisiveness as a result.
I can imagine the comparison continuing to hold true through his later years, with a series of increasingly-delusional attempts to regain power or even just influence.
Lets hope he skips the sucking up to foreign fascists stage before he finally descends into senility...
But Starmer did, and so it's fair game to comment, especially when today PMQs is probably only getting onto the news if it links into the Trump coverage that will dominate the day.
Badenoch can say what she wants - but she's clearly not yet aiming for younger/centrist voters under the age of 50.
It's not clear what Trump will actually do in government - which is the point of the list.
I am surprised at her defence error, but a full pile on her on her first outing seems a bit over the top not least as there is only one subject on in the media and indeed Sky switched away from from PMQs when Badenoch Starmer moment concluded
I am also aware many are shocked at what has happened and angry but then democracy has spoken and Trump is king of all he surveys for the next 4 years
Anyone denying Trump's mental state just needs to look at any of his recent speeches.
Surely the audience was pro-Trump anyway?
Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
That is definitely unpatriotic.
Lammy might have been a fool, but it's silly to try to undermine attempts by the government to maintain reasonable relations with the US.
We've got four and half years of Keir Vs Kemi and I'm sure she'll have better (and worse) outing's.
Edit: The main telling point was all the Labour MP's starting their questions with "Kemi said this. Kemi said that" lol!
Under the U.S. constutution, couldn't Kamala Harris could become President for two or three months ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvzjr8w9mxo
..Firstly, the dinner the prime minister and the Foreign Secretary David Lammy had with the president-elect at Trump Tower in New York in September.
Trump, sources say, re-arranged his schedule to find time to meet Starmer and Lammy, which was seen as a “good gesture” with the soon to be president.
Secondly, the prime minister managed an early call with Donald Trump shortly after he survived an assassination attempt.
Both opportunities to talk to Trump are put down to an impressive diplomatic operation at the British Embassy in Washington – led by the ambassador Dame Karen Pierce.
Those close to the foreign secretary say he has also been putting in the leg work for months – including before the election – to get to know and to understand Donald Trump and those around him.
On a visit to Washington DC in May, he pointed out in a speech that it was his seventh visit to the US capital in three and a half years.
“I’ve been to the United States more times than I’ve been to France. I’ve lived in America, I’ve studied in America, I’ve got family in America. My father is buried in Texas,” he told an audience at the Hudson Institute.
He described Trump as “often misunderstood,” referred to the Vice President Elect JD Vance as “my friend” and added “I totally get the agenda…that drives America First,” a reference to the phrase Trump used in his Inauguration Speech in January 2017 to spell out that “every decision…will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”..
Labour had a load of success with viral videos during GE2017 and GE2019 and it didn't make much difference in the end. Obviously the US is different but I am always sceptical of saying engagement = votes
a) She has just highlighted the Labour's government issues with Trump who is known to hold a grudge and undone Starmer's congratulation letter. If we are going to have decent relations with Trump was that a good idea to do this. Country before politics; she could have done a lot of harm if and when this gets back to him. What will it do to our relationship with him.
b) As pointed out in the header and me on the last thread only Reform voters agree with her on Trump so she is alienating a lot of voters across all other parties. OK not by just this, but presumably she will follow it up with other statements if she is going to pitch the Tories along Trump lines. I'm sure the Tory candidates in the County elections in the home counties will appreciate the tack she has taken.
c) It was her first PMQs. She could have gone down a non party line. As several of us suggested Ukraine would have been a good pitch, particularly as it is important for Europe, particularly now, so some relevant questions could have been asked. She presented well so she could have got some good headlines across the political spectrum rather than some politically biased stuff on the news tonight.
But one of the reasons I didn't bet on Potus 2024 was that I noticed several weeks ago that btc was functioning as a proxy bet on a Trump victory, i.e. every time it looked more likely, bitcoin went up and vice versa. And the amount I have in my coinbase account is more than enough exposure to that market - indeed, I'm quite a few quid "up" this morning without placing a single bet. More so than if I'd punted a few hundred quid on Trump at 1.6, with much lower downside risk if he didn't win.
So it was always clear it was going to rocket after a Trump victory. Trump spoke at the bitcoin conference and despite clearly not understanding it as a technology, said all the things the bitcoin bros wanted to hear on regulation and adoption.
Overall, I suspect price was waiting for certainty before moving, leading to a lot of traders sitting out in cash the last few weeks now jumping back in. I suspect the bitcoin bros will be disappointed, Trump doesn't care about it one way or the other. But he did make the effort to court that market in ways Kamala didn't. Worth noting that 40% of Americans own crypto in one form or another, so it's not exactly a niche audience.
The big news in the space is of course the ETFs gobbling up everything in sight. Blackrock and Fidelity betwen them now custody $36359m of bitcoin on behalf of their clients. While Joe Sixpack buyinng a few hundred bucks in Coinbase is nowhere to be seen. The typical buyer in 2024 has been a rich investor looking to allocate a % of their portfolio via an ETF, which OG whales have been selling into, heavily - hence the price not being far higher than it is.
My prediction is that if the halving doesn't lead to a significant price rise over the next six months as it has in the past two cycles, it will be seen as a bit of a busted flush and slowly fade away. If on the other hand it even reaches a multiple of 10x from the previous cycle low (currently at a multiple of 5x, vs peak multiples of 100x and 20x in 2017 and 2021 respectively), it's hold on to your hats time.
One other noteworthy point: Trump promised to pardon Ross Ulbricht. A good measure of how much Trump cares about the bitcoin bros will be whether he comes good on that promise or not. My guess is - not.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-opposition-leaders-first-pmqs-a-history-lesson/
I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.
Sure, there were always comments pointing out the different between them and now, but many fewer people read the comments.
And because its all clipped, any in depth chatter about tariff policy (and all the nonsense he was talking), nobody watches that bit.
I don't think any of the Labour memes about Tories changed any perceptions. Rishi is extremely rich and so rather out of touch, I mean I don't think anybody is suddenly realising that might be the case.
Harris - if you love your daughter you'll vote D.
No wonder she made no inroads with men whatsoever.
What was silly was signalling support for Trump in your first PMQs, even if indirectly. That coupled with the defence mistake makes her sound like an alt-right troll account spouting off on twitter.
She could have gone on Ukraine or even a brutal attack on employer NICs hitting "working people". Or more on the farmers stuff. Or winter fuel payment. Loads of alternatives.
Earlier he said this: https://x.com/DavidLammy/status/1854077924686573734?t=dkZZqVEWqcuVjjnzTrdx6A&s=19
Sigh....
I guess his time may still come in 18 months or so.
Dear Verulamius,
This is a very dark day.
I’m sure you’re very worried about what Donald Trump’s election will mean – for the future of the world, and for the values we all hold dear. I’m worried too.
But you have the power to do something about it. Together, our party will stand up to Donald Trump’s nasty, divisive politics and defend our values of decency, compassion and equality – at home and around the world.
So do something today: ask five friends to join the Liberal Democrats.
Send them this link and tell them they can be part of the liberal, progressive and internationalist movement the world needs now more than ever:
www.libdems.org.uk/join
Because the next President of the United States is a dangerous demagogue, who actively undermines the rule of law, human rights, international trade, climate action, global security… the list goes on.
Millions of Americans – especially women and minorities – will be incredibly fearful about what comes next. We stand with them.
Families across the UK will also be worrying about the damage Trump will do to our economy and our national security, given his record of starting trade wars, undermining NATO and emboldening tyrants like Putin.
That makes fixing the UK’s broken relationship with the EU even more urgent than it already was. We must strengthen trade and defence cooperation across Europe to help protect ourselves from the damage Trump will do. And only the Liberal Democrats are fighting to do that.
This is not the result any of us wanted to see. And I know it’ll take a while to come to terms with it. But I also know we won’t let that stop us from standing up proudly for our liberal values.
Best wishes at a very difficult time,
Ed Davey MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
(he/him)
Why not just take an independent stand in our own national interest?
The reality is that Lammy should have been ruled out of consideration for Foreign Secretary because of his track record of saying stupid things like his comments on DJT. This mess was entirely predictable when he was appointed, and it reflects very badly on Starmer that he gave him the job anyway.
It's entirely fair game for Kemmi to point this out.
b) That's too big a "presumably" to extrapolate from one PMQs.
C) She said something that will get on the news tonight and given that said news will be dominated by Trump, that's presumably what she was aiming at.
Full membership would involve committing to the Euro, which not even Tony Blair in his prime could get through and Starmer is no Blair.
So I don't see either of those happening in the near future.
Nor do I think either are particularly necessary. We face plenty of challenges, but they are internally generated, mostly due to a rapacious, underperforming government that sees itself as the solution rather than the problem. Pointlessly reopening the European issue would actually distract us from addressing those.
There is only one topic today snd that is Trump and highlighting Lammys toxic words is just politics
Also it is worth considering just how this may change the narrative in UK politics and how Starmer deals with it as his party are so very anti Trump
Labour have years in office ahead of them. There are plenty of other things to attack them on; this is one which might help the Tories but it certainly doesn't help the UK.
Listening to PMWs, I think that both Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch have time to learn, and both are inexperienced.
The most notable thing for me was quite how blunt Keir Starmer was in his comments on Dawn Butler's racist attack on Kemi Badenoch.
I think KB needs to reduce her number of self-trip-ups. I trust that someone on the Labour benches is keeping a list.
I'm surprised the Govt are going quite so softly on the "Conservative Black Hole"; there are all kinds of things which are on top of that which has been identified - starting with the £10bn+ of unfunded compensation.
Dems need a wholesale clear out of the old guard of the Biden, Pelosi, Schumer types and to very carefully consider what got them so badly humped this time
It's also flawed because it concentrates mostly on semiconductor fabs, but the raw wafers produced by the fabs have to be cut up and the separated dies placed in suitable packaging. That's an increasingly elaborate and difficult job which is not normally done at the fab, but in a another facility. A lot of modern CPUs, FPGAs, etc, actually mount several silicon dies (aka 'chiplets') together on one package, sometimes even stacked on top of each other. That is, if anything, an even larger technical challenge than producing the chips. One of the reasons Intel is in trouble is because their rival AMD has its chips built by TSMC, who are masters at chiplets and die stacking.
The astounding complexity of the electronics supply chain also mutes the effectiveness of this kind of on-shoring process. As car manufacturers found out to their cost all it takes is one $0.20 microcontroller to be unavailable and you have 99.99% finished cars piling up at factories.
Just shows how wrong we can be
Florida: Trump 56%, Harris 43%
New York: Harris 55%, Trump 45%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFzpsOr854I
What so many still fail to realise is that had this been considered seriously before the Brexit vote we never would have Brexiteed, but both sides preferred to ignore it, rather than listen, and try to force a binary choice that they could settle the issue with.
Unfortunately, it didn't go their way. There's a lesson there. One that sadly hasn't been fully learnt yet.