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.
By long a, do you mean 'bade'? or 'bard'? I hope the former.
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
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)
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
You scent blood ( or curry ) again BigG.
Whereas Lammy was probably unwise to call out the future President -elect, an adjudicated rapist, convicted felon and instigator of a guerilla style coup against the United States Constitution, I don't believe many UK citizens disagree with his analysis.
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.
Could go to automatic recount if less than 2000 votes in it (about 2500 atm, not sure where is left to report)
On topic, and from previous thread, I see a lot of people are still struggling to accept that Trump is the President-Elect of the United States and UK politicians will now have to treat with him on that basis.
She's done a Hillary and gone to bed. I saw some rumours she had phoned Trump to privately concede but nothing confirmed
I remain fascinated by the thought that anyone can get sleep in such circumstances. People in high-powered public-facing roles really are made differently.
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.
Fascinating. I was under the impression that the act had "bought" the US a few years of advantage with respect to semiconductors/chip manufacturing vs China. Do you think it hasn't worked at all?
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.
I think the Dems will win Nevada too. If Harris had ran as well as her senators we'd be looking at a very very very tight race right now. (Harris wins AZ, MI, WI); NV TCTC; PA Trump, GA, WI unknown.
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)
What a stupid thing to say.
I’m sure the Americans worried about Trump’s victory will be reassured that Ed Davey stands with them. Thoughts and prayers to him.
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?
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've said this before, but one of our analogue chips more than a decade ago was fabbed in China, then the wafers were taken to AMS in Austria for packaging, then a sample of each batch of the chips were sent to the UK for testing, and to the US for distribution to customers via a third party. It was cheaper to send them around the world like this than to set up packaging or test facilities in any one country.
(All from ancient memory).
Interestingly (and worryingly), a couple of chip companies in the UK have instituted a "No China, no Taiwan" policy to try to protect their supply chains...
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?
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?
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.
By long a, do you mean 'bade'? or 'bard'? I hope the former.
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
Oh, so it's Badenoch to sound the same as Baden-Powell? I've been saying it all wrong.
I'm going to need to try to think of it as "Baden-och" rather than "Bad-Enoch".
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?
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.
By long a, do you mean 'bade'? or 'bard'? I hope the former.
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
Oh, so it's Badenoch to sound the same as Baden-Powell? I've been saying it all wrong.
I'm going to need to try to think of it as "Baden-och" rather than "Bad-Enoch".
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’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)
What a stupid thing to say.
I’m sure the Americans worried about Trump’s victory will be reassured that Ed Davey stands with them. Thoughts and prayers to him.
To be fair, though, he is speaking to his base.
I am happier with the big FO from Ed than Starmer and Lammy's grovelling.
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?
These figures re Trump support in the UK will shift. Currently there is a campaign against him, but the 'MSM' will be directed to start being more 'objective' for the purpose of pursuing diplomatic relations, and then the figures will just start going up. If the world doesn't end in January next year when he takes office that will give him a boost, also there will probably be a boost if there are some solutions re Ukraine and Gaza. The social media channels will also have to hold back on censorship etc. So essentially, as far as I can see it, the only way is up for Trump at least for the next couple of years.
I’ve just discovered that Kemi B used to work at The Spectator, by far the most prestigious magazine in the English speaking world and probably the most revered journal in the entire world. Also yet another party leader coming through the Speccy ranks
As a humble travel scribe for the Flint Knapper’s Gazette I can only dream of working for the Spec but hearing this has given me renewed respect for the LOTO
Also she did OK, First outing, she’s very young, she was decent, plus she will improve and relax, but with Starmer this is it, this revived corpse of tedium is as good as he will ever be
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.
By long a, do you mean 'bade'? or 'bard'? I hope the former.
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
Oh, so it's Badenoch to sound the same as Baden-Powell? I've been saying it all wrong.
I'm going to need to try to think of it as "Baden-och" rather than "Bad-Enoch".
It is pronounced to rhyme with maiden.
So it is 'Baiden-och.'
But a hard c at the end of it, to rhyme with eg nock of a bow.
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.
By long a, do you mean 'bade'? or 'bard'? I hope the former.
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
Oh, so it's Badenoch to sound the same as Baden-Powell? I've been saying it all wrong.
I'm going to need to try to think of it as "Baden-och" rather than "Bad-Enoch".
How is it pronounced in Scotland?
Badenoch is a wide area of the central Highlands including the upper Spey and Loch Laggan.
The so-called Wolf of Badenoch had a couple of castles, including the famous (small) one in Loch an Eilean.
[Edit: I presumed Baiden-och with the och as in loch]
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
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.
Fascinating. I was under the impression that the act had "bought" the US a few years of advantage with respect to semiconductors/chip manufacturing vs China. Do you think it hasn't worked at all?
The chips part of the Chips Act was always more about supply chain security in the event China decides to invade Taiwan than actual manufacturing advantage per se I believe. China is catching up with their indigenous chip production & will probably achieve parity with TSMC et al eventually, or at most be a single process jump behind.
On topic, and from previous thread, I see a lot of people are still struggling to accept that Trump is the President-Elect of the United States and UK politicians will now have to treat with him on that basis.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
It will be impressive if JD Vance becomes the Democratic nominee!
Another thing that I have thought would happen for some time is that the labour government could collapse very quickly in the event of a Trump presidency. A lot of labour politicians will just not be able to allow Starmer to pursue normal diplomatic relations with the US, including large parts of the front bench; they are too infected by some variant of the 'woke mind virus' which could now just rapidly kill off the labour party. So we could get a general election and a new government more quickly than you would ordinarily expect. Badenoch is showing diplomacy and skill in my view in making these comments, she is able to see the bigger picture.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Not that simple for me. Rust belt sweep they sneak it 270 to 268, too narrow a path with NH, NJ, Va etc trending right. Depends on the fallout - whether Dems decide to (for example) purge identity politics as a response, or go much harder on immigration etc
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Trouble is Mayor Pete is now Transport Secretary Pete and in a couple of months will be Unemployed Pete. He needs a job from which he can reenter politics.
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.
Thanks for the reply @Driver. I see @Eabhal posted almost identically to me and others along the same lines, but @Big_G_NorthWales not so and @Big_G_NorthWales and I are often in agreement so interesting difference of opinions here.
a) Yes Trump may well remember the Lammy quote but there is no need to highlight it when we are going to need delicate international relations. Bit of a silly thing to do just for political gain.
b) Maybe, although lots of others have come to the same conclusion and therefore not unreasonable. People will looking closely at where the Tory party is going to be pitched in her first few months so it is important.
c) She will get on the news anyway, after all it is her first PMQ, whereas she won't on most other occasions. It would be better to look stateswoman-like rather than pitching for the Reform vote and alienating floating moderate voters. Ukraine was such an obvious one to go for. Several of us independently came up with that as a suggestion, so presumably it has merit.
Another thing that I have thought would happen for some time is that the labour government could collapse very quickly in the event of a Trump presidency. A lot of labour politicians will just not be able to allow Starmer to pursue normal diplomatic relations with the US, including large parts of the front bench; they are too infected by some variant of the 'woke mind virus' which could now just rapidly kill off the labour party. So we could get a general election and a new government more quickly than you would ordinarily expect. Badenoch is showing diplomacy and skill in my view in making these comments, she is able to see the bigger picture.
No way is Labour calling an early election. They have a massive majority. It will be May 2029.
These figures re Trump support in the UK will shift. Currently there is a campaign against him, but the 'MSM' will be directed to start being more 'objective' for the purpose of pursuing diplomatic relations, and then the figures will just start going up. If the world doesn't end in January next year when he takes office that will give him a boost, also there will probably be a boost if there are some solutions re Ukraine and Gaza. The social media channels will also have to hold back on censorship etc. So essentially, as far as I can see it, the only way is up for Trump at least for the next couple of years.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Trouble is Mayor Pete is now Transport Secretary Pete and in a couple of months will be Unemployed Pete. He needs a job from which he can reenter politics.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
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
You scent blood ( or curry ) again BigG.
Whereas Lammy was probably unwise to call out the future President -elect, an adjudicated rapist, convicted felon and instigator of a guerilla style coup against the United States Constitution, I don't believe many UK citizens disagree with his analysis.
No
Lammy will survive but his comments were ill advised and will be quoted, as indeed they have been, in the media today and on here
Fascinating. I was under the impression that the act had "bought" the US a few years of advantage with respect to semiconductors/chip manufacturing vs China. Do you think it hasn't worked at all?
It's created some (very expensive) US jobs, but that's about it. China lags behind the US in semiconductor technology because they can't buy the cutting edge tools used to fab the chips. Those are produced by a very, very small number of companies who are all based in countries which are friendly to the the US and will mostly obey their technology sanctions against China. The most important of these manufacturers is ASML in the Netherlands. If Trump pisses off Europe enough he may find their reluctance to sell to China evaporates.
China is catching up anyway. Their domestically developed fab technology is good enough for all but the most high-end uses now.
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.
Thanks for the reply @Driver. I see @Eabhal posted almost identically to me and others along the same lines, but @Big_G_NorthWales not so and @Big_G_NorthWales and I are often in agreement so interesting difference of opinions here.
a) Yes Trump may well remember the Lammy quote but there is no need to highlight it when we are going to need delicate international relations. Bit of a silly thing to do just for political gain.
b) Maybe, although lots of others have come to the same conclusion and therefore not unreasonable. People will looking closely at where the Tory party is going to be pitched in her first few months so it is important.
c) She will get on the news anyway, after all it is her first PMQ, whereas she won't on most other occasions. It would be better to look stateswoman-like rather than pitching for the Reform vote and alienating floating moderate voters. Ukraine was such an obvious one to go for. Several of us independently came up with that as a suggestion, so presumably it has merit.
I definitely disagree on (c). Without the Trump link, she wouldn't have got noticed at all, and I don't see this as "pitching for the Reform vote". It does feel (especially in conjunction with point (b)) that you and others are assuming what you're trying to prove.
I was just recalling the pile on @williamglenn and it appears he was right all along
Just shows how wrong we can be
The PB assault on anyone who merely presented data favorable to Trump was a fucking disgrace, and those responsible should walk in shame
It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB
We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”
Fascinating. I was under the impression that the act had "bought" the US a few years of advantage with respect to semiconductors/chip manufacturing vs China. Do you think it hasn't worked at all?
It's created some (very expensive) US jobs, but that's about it. China lags behind the US in semiconductor technology because they can't buy the cutting edge tools used to fab the chips. Those are produced by a very, very small number of companies who are all based in countries which are friendly to the the US and will mostly obey their technology sanctions against China. The most important of these manufacturers is ASML in the Netherlands. If Trump pisses off Europe enough he may find their reluctance to sell to China evaporates.
China is catching up anyway. Their domestically developed fab technology is good enough for all but the most high-end uses now.
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.
By long a, do you mean 'bade'? or 'bard'? I hope the former.
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
Oh, so it's Badenoch to sound the same as Baden-Powell? I've been saying it all wrong.
I'm going to need to try to think of it as "Baden-och" rather than "Bad-Enoch".
How is it pronounced in Scotland?
Badenoch is a wide area of the central Highlands including the upper Spey and Loch Laggan.
The so-called Wolf of Badenoch had a couple of castles, including the famous (small) one in Loch an Eilean.
[Edit: I presumed Baiden-och with the och as in loch]
That is how it's pronounced in Scotland but Kemi's hubby is a London based Deutsche banker, I'm sure I heard him specify that's his pronunciation. He'll be careful to keep it public school RP for the boardroom, won't want anyone thinking he's a northern barbarian.
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 don't mean this as a criticism. You're the editor and can write (and think) what you like. But it does feel like you're always going to find any Tory who isn't David Cameron or, at a push, George Osborne, lacking.
You may of course be right about Kemi being a bluffer. But my understanding was that that was true of all of us.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.
Badenoch did fine. The main thing that will last from the whole 10 minute exchange is Starmer saying that the 'vast vast vast majority of farmers will be unaffected'....and he is proud of it.
He clearly has no idea how his farming policy is going down, or he just doesn't care. Well he will do in the next few weeks.
Don't know if it has been mentioned, but from January 2027, under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the UK government will be putting taxes on fertiliser imported into the country.
Fertiliser is one of the largest cost for farmers. It will be increase the cost of UK produced food and inflation. Of course, no foreign grown products will be subject to this tax.
UK products being disadvantaged by a UK government. Which is effectively what the whole budget was about. Anti-growth. Anti UK products. Pro inflation. Pro foreign goods.
Another thing that I have thought would happen for some time is that the labour government could collapse very quickly in the event of a Trump presidency. A lot of labour politicians will just not be able to allow Starmer to pursue normal diplomatic relations with the US, including large parts of the front bench; they are too infected by some variant of the 'woke mind virus' which could now just rapidly kill off the labour party. So we could get a general election and a new government more quickly than you would ordinarily expect. Badenoch is showing diplomacy and skill in my view in making these comments, she is able to see the bigger picture.
No way is Labour calling an early election. They have a massive majority. It will be May 2029.
Entirely depends on the polling. Blair had 2 x big 'uns and went early twice. If Labour are a few points clear in March 2028 then it's May 28 for sure
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Not that simple for me. Rust belt sweep they sneak it 270 to 268, too narrow a path with NH, NJ, Va etc trending right. Depends on the fallout - whether Dems decide to (for example) purge identity politics as a response, or go much harder on immigration etc
I think the obvious thing is to go with a populist economic offer themselves. This will help to mollify the base when they seek to tone down the identity politics stuff, but will also capitalise on Trump selling out normal people to his billionaire mates.
But I would say that, because I've been in favour of stronger class politics over identity politics for as long as I can remember.
Another thing that I have thought would happen for some time is that the labour government could collapse very quickly in the event of a Trump presidency. A lot of labour politicians will just not be able to allow Starmer to pursue normal diplomatic relations with the US, including large parts of the front bench; they are too infected by some variant of the 'woke mind virus' which could now just rapidly kill off the labour party. So we could get a general election and a new government more quickly than you would ordinarily expect. Badenoch is showing diplomacy and skill in my view in making these comments, she is able to see the bigger picture.
No way is Labour calling an early election. They have a massive majority. It will be May 2029.
This analysis from an emigre living in the US I thinks explains why the 'hold my nose' Republicans voted for Trump. I don't think it really explains the MAGAmaniacs and Trump Cultists, though:
"1. Americans love their country and want it to be the best in the world. America is a nation of people who conquered a continent. They love strength. They love winning. Any leader who appeals to that has an automatic advantage.
"2. Unlike Europeans, Americans have not accepted managed decline. They don't have Net Zero here, they believe in producing their own energy and making it as cheap as possible because they know that their prosperity depends on it.
"3. Prices for most basic goods in the US have increased rapidly and are sky high. What the official statistics say about inflation and the reality of people's lives are not the same.
"4. Unlike you, Americans do not believe in socialism. They believe in meritocracy. They don't care about the super rich being super rich because they know that they live in a country where being super rich is available to anyone with the talent and drive to make it. They don't resent success, they celebrate it.
"5. Americans are the most pro-immigration people in the world. Read that again. Seriously, read it again. Americans love an immigrant success story. They want more talented immigrants to come to America. But they refuse to accept people coming illegally. They believe in having a border.
"6. Americans are sensitive about racial issues and their country's imperfect history. They believe that those who are disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth should be given the opportunity to succeed. What they reject, however, is the idea that in order to address the errors of the past new errors must be made. DEI is racist. They know it and they reject it precisely because they are not racist.
"7. Americans are the most philosemitic nation on earth. October 7 and the pro-Hamas left's reaction shocked them to their very core because, among other things, they remember what 9/11 was like and they know jihad when they see it.
"8. Americans are extremely practical people. They care about what works, not what sounds good. In Europe, we produce great writers and intellectuals. In America they produce (and attract) great engineers, businessmen and investors. Because of this, they care less about Trump's rhetoric than you do and more about his policies than you do.
"9. Americans are deeply optimistic people. They hate negativity. The woke view of American history as a series of evils for which they must eternally apologise is utterly abhorrent to them. They believe in moving forward together, not endlessly obsessing about the past.
"10. America is a country whose founding story is one of resistance to government overreach. They loathe unnecessary restrictions, regulations and control. They understand that freedom comes with the price of self-reliance and they pay it gladly."
I was just recalling the pile on @williamglenn and it appears he was right all along
Just shows how wrong we can be
The PB assault on anyone who merely presented data favorable to Trump was a fucking disgrace, and those responsible should walk in shame
It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB
We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”
Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers
Words can crush righty snowflakes it appears, let's hope they never get into a sticks and stones situation.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Is the problem with Shapiro not the same reason he was overlooked for VP? That too many Dem campaigners are rather corbynite in their views of his background?
This analysis from an emigre living in the US I thinks explains why the 'hold my nose' Republicans voted for Trump. I don't think it really explains the MAGAmaniacs and Trump Cultists, though:
"1. Americans love their country and want it to be the best in the world. America is a nation of people who conquered a continent. They love strength. They love winning. Any leader who appeals to that has an automatic advantage.
"2. Unlike Europeans, Americans have not accepted managed decline. They don't have Net Zero here, they believe in producing their own energy and making it as cheap as possible because they know that their prosperity depends on it.
"3. Prices for most basic goods in the US have increased rapidly and are sky high. What the official statistics say about inflation and the reality of people's lives are not the same.
"4. Unlike you, Americans do not believe in socialism. They believe in meritocracy. They don't care about the super rich being super rich because they know that they live in a country where being super rich is available to anyone with the talent and drive to make it. They don't resent success, they celebrate it.
"5. Americans are the most pro-immigration people in the world. Read that again. Seriously, read it again. Americans love an immigrant success story. They want more talented immigrants to come to America. But they refuse to accept people coming illegally. They believe in having a border.
"6. Americans are sensitive about racial issues and their country's imperfect history. They believe that those who are disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth should be given the opportunity to succeed. What they reject, however, is the idea that in order to address the errors of the past new errors must be made. DEI is racist. They know it and they reject it precisely because they are not racist.
"7. Americans are the most philosemitic nation on earth. October 7 and the pro-Hamas left's reaction shocked them to their very core because, among other things, they remember what 9/11 was like and they know jihad when they see it.
"8. Americans are extremely practical people. They care about what works, not what sounds good. In Europe, we produce great writers and intellectuals. In America they produce (and attract) great engineers, businessmen and investors. Because of this, they care less about Trump's rhetoric than you do and more about his policies than you do.
"9. Americans are deeply optimistic people. They hate negativity. The woke view of American history as a series of evils for which they must eternally apologise is utterly abhorrent to them. They believe in moving forward together, not endlessly obsessing about the past.
"10. America is a country whose founding story is one of resistance to government overreach. They loathe unnecessary restrictions, regulations and control. They understand that freedom comes with the price of self-reliance and they pay it gladly."
That's from Konstantin Kisin (unless he's stolen credit for it), he doesn't live in the US.
I was just recalling the pile on @williamglenn and it appears he was right all along
Just shows how wrong we can be
The PB assault on anyone who merely presented data favorable to Trump was a fucking disgrace, and those responsible should walk in shame
It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB
We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”
Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers
Those responsible and the fools who listened have largely been punished by the bookmakers at least.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Not that simple for me. Rust belt sweep they sneak it 270 to 268, too narrow a path with NH, NJ, Va etc trending right. Depends on the fallout - whether Dems decide to (for example) purge identity politics as a response, or go much harder on immigration etc
I think the obvious thing is to go with a populist economic offer themselves. This will help to mollify the base when they seek to tone down the identity politics stuff, but will also capitalise on Trump selling out normal people to his billionaire mates.
But I would say that, because I've been in favour of stronger class politics over identity politics for as long as I can remember.
Shapiro or Newsom then. Whitmer and Buttigieg are far too idealogical on identity politics, and Newsom is a bit Beverley Hills. Shapiro Vance 28, Republican blowout, Dems win in 32 with something and someone new
I was just recalling the pile on @williamglenn and it appears he was right all along
Just shows how wrong we can be
The PB assault on anyone who merely presented data favorable to Trump was a fucking disgrace, and those responsible should walk in shame
It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB
We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”
Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers
"Assault" follower by "Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers"
If you can't take it...
This has become a bit of a meme on PB, that anyone who posted anything pro-Trump was bullied off the site. I don't recognise that at all. @williamglenn was called out for posting out only pro-Trump stuff, but it was never done with the kind of vitriol you come out with. Almost everyone here was deeply uncertain about the result - including you!
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.
By long a, do you mean 'bade'? or 'bard'? I hope the former.
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
Oh, so it's Badenoch to sound the same as Baden-Powell? I've been saying it all wrong.
I'm going to need to try to think of it as "Baden-och" rather than "Bad-Enoch".
It is pronounced to rhyme with maiden.
So it is 'Baiden-och.'
But a hard c at the end of it, to rhyme with eg nock of a bow.
How is Badenoch in Invernessshire* pronounced?
*Yes, this post was written almost solely to be able to include a word with a triple letter. Yes, I know it is more commonly hyphentated. But that strikes me as inconsistent with how counties are normally spelled and solely down to a squeamish refusal to grasp the opportunity to use a triple letter. See also the slightly more archaic Rossshire and the German word Balletttanzer.
It is a risky strategy by Badenoch. She isn't going to win over Reform voters being too pro Trump who will stick with Farage and she might leak a few 2024 anti Trump Tories to the LDs given Davey's hard line against him
Hmmmm. A personal statement from the Leeanderthal Man about this incident:
On 3rd November 2023, at the Derby Gate search post, Houses of Parliament, the respondent, Lee Anderson MP, twice verbally insulted the complainant […], who was on duty as a Security Officer. After instructing the complainant to open the door and allow the respondent access to the Parliamentary Estate, the complainant asked to check the respondent's pass. The respondent replied, 'Fuck off, everyone opens the door to me, you are the only one'. The complainant again explained he would need to check the respondent's pass. The respondent then approached the complainant and said, 'Fuck you, I have a train to catch', before walking out of the search post.
It is a risky strategy by Badenoch. She isn't going to win over Reform voters being too pro Trump who will stick with Farage and she might leak a few 2024 anti Trump Tories to the LDs given Davey's hard line against him
She also needs to see how Trumpism works in practice. I know some on here assume it will all be great ... but it might not be.
Another thing that I have thought would happen for some time is that the labour government could collapse very quickly in the event of a Trump presidency. A lot of labour politicians will just not be able to allow Starmer to pursue normal diplomatic relations with the US, including large parts of the front bench; they are too infected by some variant of the 'woke mind virus' which could now just rapidly kill off the labour party. So we could get a general election and a new government more quickly than you would ordinarily expect. Badenoch is showing diplomacy and skill in my view in making these comments, she is able to see the bigger picture.
No way is Labour calling an early election. They have a massive majority. It will be May 2029.
Entirely depends on the polling. Blair had 2 x big 'uns and went early twice. If Labour are a few points clear in March 2028 then it's May 28 for sure
Not to go in May 2028 is to admit they expect certain defeat so they have to go in May 2028, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. However, they will still lose
This analysis from an emigre living in the US I thinks explains why the 'hold my nose' Republicans voted for Trump. I don't think it really explains the MAGAmaniacs and Trump Cultists, though:
"1. Americans love their country and want it to be the best in the world. America is a nation of people who conquered a continent. They love strength. They love winning. Any leader who appeals to that has an automatic advantage.
"2. Unlike Europeans, Americans have not accepted managed decline. They don't have Net Zero here, they believe in producing their own energy and making it as cheap as possible because they know that their prosperity depends on it.
"3. Prices for most basic goods in the US have increased rapidly and are sky high. What the official statistics say about inflation and the reality of people's lives are not the same.
"4. Unlike you, Americans do not believe in socialism. They believe in meritocracy. They don't care about the super rich being super rich because they know that they live in a country where being super rich is available to anyone with the talent and drive to make it. They don't resent success, they celebrate it.
"5. Americans are the most pro-immigration people in the world. Read that again. Seriously, read it again. Americans love an immigrant success story. They want more talented immigrants to come to America. But they refuse to accept people coming illegally. They believe in having a border.
"6. Americans are sensitive about racial issues and their country's imperfect history. They believe that those who are disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth should be given the opportunity to succeed. What they reject, however, is the idea that in order to address the errors of the past new errors must be made. DEI is racist. They know it and they reject it precisely because they are not racist.
"7. Americans are the most philosemitic nation on earth. October 7 and the pro-Hamas left's reaction shocked them to their very core because, among other things, they remember what 9/11 was like and they know jihad when they see it.
"8. Americans are extremely practical people. They care about what works, not what sounds good. In Europe, we produce great writers and intellectuals. In America they produce (and attract) great engineers, businessmen and investors. Because of this, they care less about Trump's rhetoric than you do and more about his policies than you do.
"9. Americans are deeply optimistic people. They hate negativity. The woke view of American history as a series of evils for which they must eternally apologise is utterly abhorrent to them. They believe in moving forward together, not endlessly obsessing about the past.
"10. America is a country whose founding story is one of resistance to government overreach. They loathe unnecessary restrictions, regulations and control. They understand that freedom comes with the price of self-reliance and they pay it gladly."
That's from Konstantin Kisin (unless he's stolen credit for it), he doesn't live in the US.
Sorry, you are correct on the source, and I thought he did.
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.
Thanks for the reply @Driver. I see @Eabhal posted almost identically to me and others along the same lines, but @Big_G_NorthWales not so and @Big_G_NorthWales and I are often in agreement so interesting difference of opinions here.
a) Yes Trump may well remember the Lammy quote but there is no need to highlight it when we are going to need delicate international relations. Bit of a silly thing to do just for political gain.
b) Maybe, although lots of others have come to the same conclusion and therefore not unreasonable. People will looking closely at where the Tory party is going to be pitched in her first few months so it is important.
c) She will get on the news anyway, after all it is her first PMQ, whereas she won't on most other occasions. It would be better to look stateswoman-like rather than pitching for the Reform vote and alienating floating moderate voters. Ukraine was such an obvious one to go for. Several of us independently came up with that as a suggestion, so presumably it has merit.
I definitely disagree on (c). Without the Trump link, she wouldn't have got noticed at all, and I don't see this as "pitching for the Reform vote". It does feel (especially in conjunction with point (b)) that you and others are assuming what you're trying to prove.
We will have to disagree. I am sure she would have got on the news regardless. Also I'm not trying to prove anything. but surely it is obvious that people will be watching where her stance is on stuff. We have seen before when a party leader is elected they often deliberately do a more conciliatory pitch to attract a broad church of their party, so not necessarily as expected, so I definitely wasn't assuming anything. And my view (on this bit anyway) seems to be the consensus.
I was impressed with her presentation.
PS I have just seen @HYUFD post and he also is of the same view so it isn't an anti Tory point being made. And I didn't make it as such. I just think she picked the very wrong topic.
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.
One expects that the MSM CEOs are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect at four more years of Trump, but in reality last night was the day cable news died.
This analysis from an emigre living in the US I thinks explains why the 'hold my nose' Republicans voted for Trump. I don't think it really explains the MAGAmaniacs and Trump Cultists, though:
"1. Americans love their country and want it to be the best in the world. America is a nation of people who conquered a continent. They love strength. They love winning. Any leader who appeals to that has an automatic advantage.
"2. Unlike Europeans, Americans have not accepted managed decline. They don't have Net Zero here, they believe in producing their own energy and making it as cheap as possible because they know that their prosperity depends on it.
"3. Prices for most basic goods in the US have increased rapidly and are sky high. What the official statistics say about inflation and the reality of people's lives are not the same.
"4. Unlike you, Americans do not believe in socialism. They believe in meritocracy. They don't care about the super rich being super rich because they know that they live in a country where being super rich is available to anyone with the talent and drive to make it. They don't resent success, they celebrate it.
"5. Americans are the most pro-immigration people in the world. Read that again. Seriously, read it again. Americans love an immigrant success story. They want more talented immigrants to come to America. But they refuse to accept people coming illegally. They believe in having a border.
"6. Americans are sensitive about racial issues and their country's imperfect history. They believe that those who are disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth should be given the opportunity to succeed. What they reject, however, is the idea that in order to address the errors of the past new errors must be made. DEI is racist. They know it and they reject it precisely because they are not racist.
"7. Americans are the most philosemitic nation on earth. October 7 and the pro-Hamas left's reaction shocked them to their very core because, among other things, they remember what 9/11 was like and they know jihad when they see it.
"8. Americans are extremely practical people. They care about what works, not what sounds good. In Europe, we produce great writers and intellectuals. In America they produce (and attract) great engineers, businessmen and investors. Because of this, they care less about Trump's rhetoric than you do and more about his policies than you do.
"9. Americans are deeply optimistic people. They hate negativity. The woke view of American history as a series of evils for which they must eternally apologise is utterly abhorrent to them. They believe in moving forward together, not endlessly obsessing about the past.
"10. America is a country whose founding story is one of resistance to government overreach. They loathe unnecessary restrictions, regulations and control. They understand that freedom comes with the price of self-reliance and they pay it gladly."
Re 1 - Canada and Mexico might disagree about the US conquering a co times.
Re 8 - it’s a real euro snobbish perspective, the US has produced great writers, artists, play writers and intellectuals.
And Europe has produced great engineers, businessmen and investors.maybe not as many of the last two as they should but still many huge businesses.
I was just recalling the pile on @williamglenn and it appears he was right all along
Just shows how wrong we can be
The PB assault on anyone who merely presented data favorable to Trump was a fucking disgrace, and those responsible should walk in shame
It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB
We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”
Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers
"Assault" follower by "Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers"
If you can't take it...
This has become a bit of a meme on PB, that anyone who posted anything pro-Trump was bullied off the site. I don't recognise that at all. @williamglenn was called out for posting out only pro-Trump stuff, but it was never done with the kind of vitriol you come out with. Almost everyone here was deeply uncertain about the result - including you!
I'm not on here every day but it's generally quite civil. The nasty stuff tends to be person to person rather than viewpoint to viewpoint if that makes sense. E.g. person a gets angry at person b, not Democrats get angry with Repubicans or even a specific Republican.
Badenoch did fine. The main thing that will last from the whole 10 minute exchange is Starmer saying that the 'vast vast vast majority of farmers will be unaffected'....and he is proud of it.
He clearly has no idea how his farming policy is going down, or he just doesn't care. Well he will do in the next few weeks.
Don't know if it has been mentioned, but from January 2027, under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the UK government will be putting taxes on fertiliser imported into the country.
Fertiliser is one of the largest cost for farmers. It will be increase the cost of UK produced food and inflation. Of course, no foreign grown products will be subject to this tax.
UK products being disadvantaged by a UK government. Which is effectively what the whole budget was about. Anti-growth. Anti UK products. Pro inflation. Pro foreign goods.
Gilts still at year long high.
They will be unaffected.
To a lawyer, spending thousands of pounds on trusts, taxation optimisation setups etc, is exactly what everyone should do.
It's Process State thinking - I've just imposed a large cost on people to comply with new regulations. Since this doesn't cost *my organisation* (The government) anything, it's free.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.
Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
It is a risky strategy by Badenoch. She isn't going to win over Reform voters being too pro Trump who will stick with Farage and she might leak a few 2024 anti Trump Tories to the LDs given Davey's hard line against him
Always feel a bit giddy when the stars align and I agree with you on something.
This analysis from an emigre living in the US I thinks explains why the 'hold my nose' Republicans voted for Trump. I don't think it really explains the MAGAmaniacs and Trump Cultists, though:
"1. Americans love their country and want it to be the best in the world. America is a nation of people who conquered a continent. They love strength. They love winning. Any leader who appeals to that has an automatic advantage.
"2. Unlike Europeans, Americans have not accepted managed decline. They don't have Net Zero here, they believe in producing their own energy and making it as cheap as possible because they know that their prosperity depends on it.
"3. Prices for most basic goods in the US have increased rapidly and are sky high. What the official statistics say about inflation and the reality of people's lives are not the same.
"4. Unlike you, Americans do not believe in socialism. They believe in meritocracy. They don't care about the super rich being super rich because they know that they live in a country where being super rich is available to anyone with the talent and drive to make it. They don't resent success, they celebrate it.
"5. Americans are the most pro-immigration people in the world. Read that again. Seriously, read it again. Americans love an immigrant success story. They want more talented immigrants to come to America. But they refuse to accept people coming illegally. They believe in having a border.
"6. Americans are sensitive about racial issues and their country's imperfect history. They believe that those who are disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth should be given the opportunity to succeed. What they reject, however, is the idea that in order to address the errors of the past new errors must be made. DEI is racist. They know it and they reject it precisely because they are not racist.
"7. Americans are the most philosemitic nation on earth. October 7 and the pro-Hamas left's reaction shocked them to their very core because, among other things, they remember what 9/11 was like and they know jihad when they see it.
"8. Americans are extremely practical people. They care about what works, not what sounds good. In Europe, we produce great writers and intellectuals. In America they produce (and attract) great engineers, businessmen and investors. Because of this, they care less about Trump's rhetoric than you do and more about his policies than you do.
"9. Americans are deeply optimistic people. They hate negativity. The woke view of American history as a series of evils for which they must eternally apologise is utterly abhorrent to them. They believe in moving forward together, not endlessly obsessing about the past.
"10. America is a country whose founding story is one of resistance to government overreach. They loathe unnecessary restrictions, regulations and control. They understand that freedom comes with the price of self-reliance and they pay it gladly."
That's from Konstantin Kisin (unless he's stolen credit for it), he doesn't live in the US.
Sorry, you are correct on the source, and I thought he did.
He’s been in the US for several months this year, following everything closely and speaking to a lot of influential and ordinary Americans. He’s also an immigrant to the UK, his parents were from Russia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Kisin
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.
One expects that the MSM CEOs are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect at four more years of Trump, but in reality last night was the day cable news died.
Trump won on Twitter and podcasts.
MSM utterly broken by last night and this campaign. However the biggest losers would seem to be Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell who are now their own punchline
Comments
If she is inserting an 'r' which is not there into an 'a' sound then she can kiss the votes from the North goodbye. [Flippancy mode off].
I’m not sure many of us thought Trump would be removed from the list 4 years ago.
Whereas Lammy was probably unwise to call out the future President -elect, an adjudicated rapist, convicted felon and instigator of a guerilla style coup against the United States Constitution, I don't believe many UK citizens disagree with his analysis.
She'll need to say something within the next couple of hours.
Hmm.
A 30-second video on inflation in Britain, but it's the same issue.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/coAnaLQtNh0
To be fair, though, he is speaking to his base.
This is not an exhaustive list.
Edit the MP for Leicester East too because she said Dave was awesome and that she had a crush on him.
Edit II - Alicia Kearns, Andrew Mitchell, Simo Hoare, Caroline Noakes, Alec Shelbrooke, Julian Smith,
(All from ancient memory).
Interestingly (and worryingly), a couple of chip companies in the UK have instituted a "No China, no Taiwan" policy to try to protect their supply chains...
I'm going to need to try to think of it as "Baden-och" rather than "Bad-Enoch".
So it is 'Baiden-och.'
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
See 1992.
As a humble travel scribe for the Flint Knapper’s Gazette I can only dream of working for the Spec but hearing this has given me renewed respect for the LOTO
Also she did OK, First outing, she’s very young, she was decent, plus she will improve and relax, but with Starmer this is it, this revived corpse of tedium is as good as he will ever be
Badenoch for the win
Badenoch is a wide area of the central Highlands including the upper Spey and Loch Laggan.
The so-called Wolf of Badenoch had a couple of castles, including the famous (small) one in Loch an Eilean.
[Edit: I presumed Baiden-och with the och as in loch]
Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
Possibly because they were anticipating a longer count, they might be still deciding on the response.
Depends on the fallout - whether Dems decide to (for example) purge identity politics as a response, or go much harder on immigration etc
Also I take on board your reply to @Eabhal.
a) Yes Trump may well remember the Lammy quote but there is no need to highlight it when we are going to need delicate international relations. Bit of a silly thing to do just for political gain.
b) Maybe, although lots of others have come to the same conclusion and therefore not unreasonable. People will looking closely at where the Tory party is going to be pitched in her first few months so it is important.
c) She will get on the news anyway, after all it is her first PMQ, whereas she won't on most other occasions. It would be better to look stateswoman-like rather than pitching for the Reform vote and alienating floating moderate voters. Ukraine was such an obvious one to go for. Several of us independently came up with that as a suggestion, so presumably it has merit.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noshing
At Meadowhall there is a snack bar called Nosh.
Lammy will survive but his comments were ill advised and will be quoted, as indeed they have been, in the media today and on here
China is catching up anyway. Their domestically developed fab technology is good enough for all but the most high-end uses now.
It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB
We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”
Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/12487/not-very-clever-from-cleverly-politicalbetting-com/p1
I don't mean this as a criticism. You're the editor and can write (and think) what you like. But it does feel like you're always going to find any Tory who isn't David Cameron or, at a push, George Osborne, lacking.
You may of course be right about Kemi being a bluffer. But my understanding was that that was true of all of us.
Just winding you up @leon.
He clearly has no idea how his farming policy is going down, or he just doesn't care. Well he will do in the next few weeks.
Don't know if it has been mentioned, but from January 2027, under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the UK government will be putting taxes on fertiliser imported into the country.
Fertiliser is one of the largest cost for farmers. It will be increase the cost of UK produced food and inflation. Of course, no foreign grown products will be subject to this tax.
UK products being disadvantaged by a UK government. Which is effectively what the whole budget was about. Anti-growth. Anti UK products. Pro inflation. Pro foreign goods.
Gilts still at year long high.
But I would say that, because I've been in favour of stronger class politics over identity politics for as long as I can remember.
"1. Americans love their country and want it to be the best in the world. America is a nation of people who conquered a continent. They love strength. They love winning. Any leader who appeals to that has an automatic advantage.
"2. Unlike Europeans, Americans have not accepted managed decline. They don't have Net Zero here, they believe in producing their own energy and making it as cheap as possible because they know that their prosperity depends on it.
"3. Prices for most basic goods in the US have increased rapidly and are sky high. What the official statistics say about inflation and the reality of people's lives are not the same.
"4. Unlike you, Americans do not believe in socialism. They believe in meritocracy. They don't care about the super rich being super rich because they know that they live in a country where being super rich is available to anyone with the talent and drive to make it. They don't resent success, they celebrate it.
"5. Americans are the most pro-immigration people in the world. Read that again. Seriously, read it again. Americans love an immigrant success story. They want more talented immigrants to come to America. But they refuse to accept people coming illegally. They believe in having a border.
"6. Americans are sensitive about racial issues and their country's imperfect history. They believe that those who are disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth should be given the opportunity to succeed. What they reject, however, is the idea that in order to address the errors of the past new errors must be made. DEI is racist. They know it and they reject it precisely because they are not racist.
"7. Americans are the most philosemitic nation on earth. October 7 and the pro-Hamas left's reaction shocked them to their very core because, among other things, they remember what 9/11 was like and they know jihad when they see it.
"8. Americans are extremely practical people. They care about what works, not what sounds good. In Europe, we produce great writers and intellectuals. In America they produce (and attract) great engineers, businessmen and investors. Because of this, they care less about Trump's rhetoric than you do and more about his policies than you do.
"9. Americans are deeply optimistic people. They hate negativity. The woke view of American history as a series of evils for which they must eternally apologise is utterly abhorrent to them. They believe in moving forward together, not endlessly obsessing about the past.
"10. America is a country whose founding story is one of resistance to government overreach. They loathe unnecessary restrictions, regulations and control. They understand that freedom comes with the price of self-reliance and they pay it gladly."
Shapiro Vance 28, Republican blowout, Dems win in 32 with something and someone new
If you can't take it...
This has become a bit of a meme on PB, that anyone who posted anything pro-Trump was bullied off the site. I don't recognise that at all. @williamglenn was called out for posting out only pro-Trump stuff, but it was never done with the kind of vitriol you come out with. Almost everyone here was deeply uncertain about the result - including you!
*Yes, this post was written almost solely to be able to include a word with a triple letter. Yes, I know it is more commonly hyphentated. But that strikes me as inconsistent with how counties are normally spelled and solely down to a squeamish refusal to grasp the opportunity to use a triple letter. See also the slightly more archaic Rossshire and the German word Balletttanzer.
On 3rd November 2023, at the Derby Gate search post, Houses of Parliament, the respondent, Lee Anderson MP, twice verbally insulted the complainant […], who was on duty as a Security Officer. After instructing the complainant to open the door and allow the respondent access to the Parliamentary Estate, the complainant asked to check the respondent's pass. The respondent replied, 'Fuck off, everyone opens the door to me, you are the only one'. The complainant again explained he would need to check the respondent's pass. The respondent then approached the complainant and said, 'Fuck you, I have a train to catch', before walking out of the search post.
It's a bit baffling that he Appealed it.
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-372---the-conduct-of-lee-anderson-mp.pdf
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/83a99d2d-db36-4bec-9fc7-bc9a4e660415?in=13:21:20
I was impressed with her presentation.
PS I have just seen @HYUFD post and he also is of the same view so it isn't an anti Tory point being made. And I didn't make it as such. I just think she picked the very wrong topic.
Trump won on Twitter and podcasts.
Re 8 - it’s a real euro snobbish perspective, the US has produced great writers, artists, play writers and intellectuals.
And Europe has produced great engineers, businessmen and investors.maybe not as many of the last two as they should but still many huge businesses.
To a lawyer, spending thousands of pounds on trusts, taxation optimisation setups etc, is exactly what everyone should do.
It's Process State thinking - I've just imposed a large cost on people to comply with new regulations. Since this doesn't cost *my organisation* (The government) anything, it's free.
Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Kisin
However the biggest losers would seem to be Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell who are now their own punchline