Split ticketing is still real – politicalbetting.com

System

Split ticketing is still real – politicalbetting.com

Although Casey only running 1.5 points, not 3.0, ahead of Harris, might end up costing him the race

Read the full story here

Stereodog

First?

RobD

Stereodog said:

First?

Well done.

Stereodog

Couldn't sleep last night so I listened back to the Rest is Politics US election livestream so I could hear Dominic Sandbrook who I adore. Doing so reminded me how profoundly irritating I find Rory Stewart to be. Partly it's his piping maiden aunt voice but it's also how patronising he is to American voters whilst insisting that he's not being patronising.b

No_Offence_Alan

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

Stereodog

RobD said:

Stereodog said:

First?

Well done.

Now I briefly know how it feels to be one of the titans of PB 😄.

Stereodog

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

I'm also increasingly convinced that this is a triumph for the Republicans as much as it is a triumph for Trump. They've done so well at every level that it can't just be Trump's coattails. It vindicates the cynical choice of people like Mitch McConnell who prioritised party unity over justice.

ydoethur

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

Sandpit

Man United.

Fishing

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

ydoethur

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

IanB2

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

True, but split ticketing is also a ‘thing’, and often it indicates some awareness of the need for checks and balances among voters - it’s entirely credible that someone could vote for Trump as president and then cast a vote for a Democratic senator or representative thinking this would help keep him in check.

We see some of the same in the UK, where some voters split their votes among all the parties and others back opposition parties at council elections not so much as a protest but to try and counter-balance the party in power nationally. Sadly British local government is so emasculated that there’s really not much a council can do nowadays to ‘stand up’ to whatever the national government wants to do - those days disappeared after the 1980s.

bondegezou

An interesting graphic:

Pro_Rata

IanB2 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

True, but split ticketing is also a ‘thing’, and often it indicates some awareness of the need for checks and balances among voters - it’s entirely credible that someone could vote for Trump as president and then cast a vote for a Democratic senator or representative thinking this would help keep him in check.

We see some of the same in the UK, where some voters split their votes among all the parties and others back opposition parties at council elections not so much as a protest but to try and counter-balance the party in power nationally. Sadly British local government is so emasculated that there’s really not much a council can do nowadays to ‘stand up’ to whatever the national government wants to do - those days disappeared after the 1980s.

Ultimately, it is a different choice. So, my established local Green councillors get my vote as a good local team, but the lead councillor doesn't get my vote in a GE.

Casino_Royale

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

In reality, European countries will continue to opt in or opt out of foreign policy initiatives as and when it suits them, unless there is an absolute consensus.

Taz

Three people have been charged in connection with the death of rock idol Liam Payne.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news/three-people-charged-in-connection-with-the-death-of-singer-liam-payne/ar-AA1tHCr0?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=35a267893496423e91d26f755c5811a0&ei=42

Morris_Dancer

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Nigelb

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

That's very probably true.

But election results allow us to project our own particular preconceptions onto them. Whether loser or winner.
For example the current argument in the Democrats about whether Harris was insufficient liberal, or too much so (almost certainly irrelevant).

kamski

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

That may be the biggest factor, but for those who, unlike Trump, Musk, Thiel and it seems most of the GOP, care about democracy, the re-election of someone who tried to overturn the result last time is disturbing.

It may have been often suicidal for elected Republicans to make a stand against Trump, and maybe if Republicans had chosen someone else as candidate Trump could have wrecked their chances and there could have been a Democratic landslide, but it was obviously the right thing to do.

This started with the majority of House Republicans voting not to certify the election results 4 years ago, and the Senate Republicans voting against impeaching Trump. The only way they can justify it is by telling themselves that the alternative is worse, that Harris really is the devil incarnate, that Democrats are traitors, and that they really do love Big Brother.

bookseller

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Two really good posts, the first accurately summing up the short term challenges, the second the long-term realities.

The United States was never a done deal (some might argue it could still 'break up').

Certain British statesmen probably could have asked James Madison - standing amongst the burnt buildings of Washington DC in 1815 - "so how's independence going for you?".

Long-term? "Very well thank you".

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

I wouldn't automatically assume that.

We just don't know yet how he's going to govern; the appointment of Wiles as CoS keeps that ambiguous for now; it suggests the possibility of a degree of pragmatism, though by no means guaranteeing it.

bookseller

Stereodog said:

RobD said:

Stereodog said:

First?

Well done.

Now I briefly know how it feels to be one of the titans of PB 😄.

It's all downhill from here!

TimS

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Nigelb

Stereodog said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

I'm also increasingly convinced that this is a triumph for the Republicans as much as it is a triumph for Trump. They've done so well at every level that it can't just be Trump's coattails. It vindicates the cynical choice of people like Mitch McConnell who prioritised party unity over justice.

It certainly reinforces the argument that it was the economy, not the candidates.

boulay

Taz said:

Three people have been charged in connection with the death of rock idol Liam Payne.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news/three-people-charged-in-connection-with-the-death-of-singer-liam-payne/ar-AA1tHCr0?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=35a267893496423e91d26f755c5811a0&ei=42

“Rock idol”? Pop star maybe.

I just realised this morning that “Kamala” is the wealth obsessed courtesan in Siddhartha. She then repents and converts to Buddhism. I’m not sure this tells us anything but there you are.

bondegezou

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

I wouldn't automatically assume that.

We just don't know yet how he's going to govern; the appointment of Wiles as CoS keeps that ambiguous for now; it suggests the possibility of a degree of pragmatism, though by no means guaranteeing it.

The involvement of RFK Jr. suggests a degree of utter madness.

Fishing

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

Sadly, Trump isn't fading, no matter how much some of us might wish he were. Macron, since the Parliamentary elections, definitely is.

ydoethur said:

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

As usual with the EU they desperately want to follow the American example without really understanding it, but it is completely irrelevant. This isn't just for the usual reasons that a 90% English-speaking agricultural republic of two million with common interests and traditions is always going to find it incomparably easier to cohere than the much more sprawling and diverse EU, but in this specific case America was never a "union of states" at all when it came to foreign policy - Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution made it completely explicit that that was a federal responsibility throughout. The states and counties were always completely out of it.

Only during the Civil War was that slightly disturbed.

Nigelb

bondegezou said:

An interesting graphic:

That 2020 result is remarkable.
Had Biden voluntarily stepped down before the primaries, he'd have had an unassailable place near the top of the list of presidents.

eek

Hell has actually frozen over

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an article that I can't disagree with.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/08/trump-restoration-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-germany/

While we will have problems with Trump being in the Whitehouse - it's nothing compared to the pain tariffs will impose on Germany who are already in a position of zero growth..

DavidL

Sandpit said:

Man United.

It's a start but they are so goal shy, particularly the forwards. Rashford Hujland, Zirkzee, none of them have scored recently and they don't provide any threat of doing so. All of the small trickle of goals have come from midfielders or wingers. If even Ruud can't show them the way to the net there will need to be big changes in January.

ydoethur

Fishing said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

Sadly, Trump isn't fading, no matter how much some of us might wish he were. Macron, since the Parliamentary elections, definitely is.

ydoethur said:

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

As usual with the EU they desperately want to follow the American example without really understanding it, but it is completely irrelevant. This isn't just for the usual reasons that a 90% English-speaking agricultural republic of two million with common interests and traditions is always going to find it incomparably easier to cohere than the much more sprawling and diverse EU, but in this specific case America was never a "union of states" at all when it came to foreign policy - Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution made it completely explicit that that was a federal responsibility throughout. The states and counties were always completely out of it.

Only during the Civil War was that slightly disturbed.

Yes, but that in itself was an evolution of what had happened earlier - the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (for example) controlled foreign policy but had to get agreement from 9 states on anything.

I agree with you, I don't think it *will* happen in Europe, but I can see why others would think it *might*.

Nigelb

bondegezou said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

I wouldn't automatically assume that.

We just don't know yet how he's going to govern; the appointment of Wiles as CoS keeps that ambiguous for now; it suggests the possibility of a degree of pragmatism, though by no means guaranteeing it.

The involvement of RFK Jr. suggests a degree of utter madness.

It sounds as though he won't get a significant cabinet post, though.
We'll see in due course.

The Trump presidency is going to be bad - particularly so for the rest of the world - but 'bad' encompasses a very large range of possible futures.

Stuartinromford

Nigelb said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

That's very probably true.

But election results allow us to project our own particular preconceptions onto them. Whether loser or winner.
For example the current argument in the Democrats about whether Harris was insufficient liberal, or too much so (almost certainly irrelevant).

The other way of looking at it is that the Dems did about as well as it has been possible for an incumbent party to do anywhere in 2024, because voters worldwide are chronically irritated. It's not an especially satisfying story, that our leaders are as tossed about on the sea of events as the rest of us, but it is more true than I suspect most of us like to admit.

Same goes in reverse for the Republicans. A lot of their triumph was down to being out of office at the right time. Looking at the global picture and what happened in the swing states, if anything their campaign worked against them.

But a win is a win. And yes, the same applies to SKSICIPM.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

I wouldn't automatically assume that.

That there's going to be an election, or that the Republicans will be hammered?

Sean_F

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Nothing builds nations like spilling blood against a common enemy.

The USA was forged through iron and blood.

Is there any EU leader who would be willing to do the same? The EU will never be a nation, unless their leaders are willing to smash in their enemies’ faces.

Casino_Royale

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Because there's no serious prospect of them ever being near power..

ydoethur

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Nothing builds nations like spilling blood against a common enemy.

The USA was forged through iron and blood.

Is there any EU leader who would be willing to do the same? The EU will never be a nation, unless their leaders are willing to smash in their enemies’ faces.

I don't think it would be wise for them to punch Trump. He might take it amiss.

Theuniondivvie

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Just listening to former head of MI6 on R4 saying Putin has access to the best psychologists who will have framed the ideal statement for him to flatter Trump’s massive ego. Labour seem to have managed it off their own bat though still a deal of backtracking to do.

The other take was a land for peace deal in Ukraine now seems very much an accepted thing.

Casino_Royale

Stuartinromford said:

Nigelb said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

That's very probably true.

But election results allow us to project our own particular preconceptions onto them. Whether loser or winner.
For example the current argument in the Democrats about whether Harris was insufficient liberal, or too much so (almost certainly irrelevant).

Looking at the global picture and what happened in the swing states, if anything their campaign worked against them.

But a win is a win. And yes, the same applies to SKSICIPM.

Why say something barking like that?

Trump won a majority of the vote. The first time a Republican had done so for 20 years. SKS barely scraped 30%.

You can't dress that up. And the more you do the longer his opponents will be out of office.

DavidL

eek said:

Hell has actually frozen over

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an article that I can't disagree with.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/08/trump-restoration-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-germany/

While we will have problems with Trump being in the Whitehouse - it's nothing compared to the pain tariffs will impose on Germany who are already in a position of zero growth..

It makes this no confidence motion in January all the more ridiculous. When our opposition move a no confidence motion it is heard the next day and for very good reasons. Germany have not exactly been blessed with dynamic leadership in recent times but their government is in limbo now for months, critical months as Europe tries to respond to Trump's win. It's a disaster for them, for Ukraine and for the continent.

kjh

djt shares have been dropping since the election. Not sure I understand why. I thought they would surge on a Trump win. They are a meme stock. From a financials point of view the price should be zero, but that isn't how these stocks seem to be valued.

On another point @Luckyguy1983 thought that the story of the guy who made a fortune on betting on a poll on 'How you think your neighbours will vote' was actually really shy Trump voters really saying how they would vote. I disagree. Why not just take the poll on face value. Political parties canvas for just this sort of info. Many of us here do just this by talking to voters and know whether we are winning or losing and change our tactics accordingly. When you talk to neighbours you get a feeling for what is happening. If you have the accumulated data of thousands of these opinions you have a good feel.

Credit to the guy for doing this, but let's not misinterpret what happened and take the obvious evidence on face value.

Roger

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

With typical French guile Macron congratulated him and described him as 'a politician with convictions'

Stuartinromford

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale:

Only three of yesterday's byelection results have been reported overnight:
Wyre, Marsh Mill: RUK gain from C
Blackpool, Bispham: Lab gain from C
Bracknell, Great Hollands: Lab hold
6 seats to declare today, Previews at andrewspreviews.substack.com

https://bsky.app/profile/andrewteale.bsky.social/post/3lag7xrvsiz2z

Still to come, five in Scotland and a Green defence in Herefordshire.

bondegezou

Casino_Royale said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigelb said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

That's very probably true.

But election results allow us to project our own particular preconceptions onto them. Whether loser or winner.
For example the current argument in the Democrats about whether Harris was insufficient liberal, or too much so (almost certainly irrelevant).

Looking at the global picture and what happened in the swing states, if anything their campaign worked against them.

But a win is a win. And yes, the same applies to SKSICIPM.

Why say something barking like that?

Trump won a majority of the vote. The first time a Republican had done so for 20 years. SKS barely scraped 30%.

You can't dress that up. And the more you do the longer his opponents will be out of office.

But equally the losing Democratic candidate in the US won 47.7%+, while the Conservatives here got 23.7%. Starmer’s lead over the Tories is considerably bigger than Trump’s over Harris.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

Sadly, Trump isn't fading, no matter how much some of us might wish he were. Macron, since the Parliamentary elections, definitely is.

ydoethur said:

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

As usual with the EU they desperately want to follow the American example without really understanding it, but it is completely irrelevant. This isn't just for the usual reasons that a 90% English-speaking agricultural republic of two million with common interests and traditions is always going to find it incomparably easier to cohere than the much more sprawling and diverse EU, but in this specific case America was never a "union of states" at all when it came to foreign policy - Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution made it completely explicit that that was a federal responsibility throughout. The states and counties were always completely out of it.

Only during the Civil War was that slightly disturbed.

Yes, but that in itself was an evolution of what had happened earlier - the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (for example) controlled foreign policy but had to get agreement from 9 states on anything.

I agree with you, I don't think it *will* happen in Europe, but I can see why others would think it *might*.

More likely is stronger European alliances separate from the EU structure.
There's a subset of countries - along with the UK - far keener on a military alliance against Russia than is the EU as a whole, where attitudes range from support, through indifference, to outright hostility.

A partition of Ukraine engineered by Trump might change that, but I don't see that it will.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

I wouldn't automatically assume that.

That there's going to be an election, or that the Republicans will be hammered?

Yes.

Nigelb

Theuniondivvie said:

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Just listening to former head of MI6 on R4 saying Putin has access to the best psychologists who will have framed the ideal statement for him to flatter Trump’s massive ego. Labour seem to have managed it off their own bat though still a deal of backtracking to do.

The other take was a land for peace deal in Ukraine now seems very much an accepted thing.

Accepted by whom ?

Nigelb

kjh said:

djt shares have been dropping since the election. Not sure I understand why. I thought they would surge on a Trump win. They are a meme stock. From a financials point of view the price should be zero, but that isn't how these stocks seem to be valued...

.

Possibly because they are simpler ways to bribe Trump, now he's President, likely controlling both houses of Congress, than by buying DJT stock.

TimS

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Nothing builds nations like spilling blood against a common enemy.

The USA was forged through iron and blood.

Is there any EU leader who would be willing to do the same? The EU will never be a nation, unless their leaders are willing to smash in their enemies’ faces.

Switzerland notably managed to unite as a very stable confederation without smashing in its enemies faces. They did smash each others faces in a couple of times though.

nico679

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

DecrepiterJohnL

It's the son wot won it
The Telegraph's front page caption to Barron Trump (and Nigel Farage).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6ky5g82wyo

It was Barron who convinced The Donald to appear on a series of podcasts, culminating with Joe Rogan, as discussed on pb by Leon.

...
Crucially, however, it is an environment beloved of younger men – 18 to 34, the so-called “bro vote” – a demographic with huge electoral potential for Republicans, given its widely reported Rightward drift in recent years, but one which has traditionally proven elusive at the polls.
...
All the while he largely eschewed interviews with the traditional media.
...
There is no real journalism in any, or little evidence of Mr Trump being held to account.

But in one sense the format presents a different challenge: that of appearing at ease and normal during long, informal conversations, a prospect some politicians fear more than a set-piece grilling.

And the discussions are long: more than three hours in the case of the Joe Rogan interview, which generated 45 million views on YouTube; one hour 17 minutes in sit-down with Adin Ross.

But it seemed to suit the former president. Indeed, he seemed arguably at his best. He is never not the essential Trump of old: boastful, hyperbolic and casual with the truth.

But in these podcasts he adopts a far softer tone than on the campaign trail: mischievous, witty, generous at times.

He seems genuinely at ease, not to mention knowledgeable, discussing UFC, wrestling and the minutiae of American Football.
...
The numbers speak for themselves.

Younger voters traditionally lean Democrat but Harris only won the 18 to 29-year-old vote by 11 points, a brutal drop from Biden’s 24 and Clinton’s 19.
...

The contrast with the Harris campaign could not have been starker, relying on endorsements from rich Hollywood stars whose lives are so far removed from those of the voters they were hoping to reach.

If they can stomach it, the party will surely pay more heed to the manosphere next time.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/07/how-barron-trump-helped-his-dad-win-the-bro-vote/ (£££)

viewcode

kjh said:

djt shares have been dropping since the election. Not sure I understand why. I thought they would surge on a Trump win. They are a meme stock. From a financials point of view the price should be zero, but that isn't how these stocks seem to be valued...

Buy on the rumour, sell on the fact, as they say.

algarkirk

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Of course Macron is right in general. Of the things to think about three stand out:

There is no alternative to NATO until there is (that won't be soon) and the threat is real. Therefore a realistic view towards the USA, holding our friends close, is non negotiable.

On their own European forces are inadequate. Therefore the position of France and the UK as the essential and only non USA deterrent is non negotiable.

Rearming to the level of a European based deterrent is non negotiable in a world as dark as it has become.

All of which is sad.

kamski

eek said:

Hell has actually frozen over

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an article that I can't disagree with.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/08/trump-restoration-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-germany/

While we will have problems with Trump being in the Whitehouse - it's nothing compared to the pain tariffs will impose on Germany who are already in a position of zero growth..

Certainly terrible news for countries like Germany who are big goods trading nations. But the more pressing concern people have right now is what happens with with Ukraine and NATO. Also what a Trump "solution" in Ukraine will mean for German politics.

Yesterday an acquaintance surprised me by saying that she was sick of Germany wasting so much money on Ukraine "when there are people in Germany who are cold and hungry" and therefore that she was going to vote AfD. It was the voting AfD bit that surprised me. I reminded her that I am myself an immigrant and that for me the AfD was an "absolutes No-Go" as they say round here.

viewcode

kjh said:

djt shares have been dropping since the election. Not sure I understand why. I thought they would surge on a Trump win. They are a meme stock. From a financials point of view the price should be zero, but that isn't how these stocks seem to be valued.

On another point @Luckyguy1983 thought that the story of the guy who made a fortune on betting on a poll on 'How you think your neighbours will vote' was actually really shy Trump voters really saying how they would vote. I disagree. Why not just take the poll on face value. Political parties canvas for just this sort of info. Many of us here do just this by talking to voters and know whether we are winning or losing and change our tactics accordingly. When you talk to neighbours you get a feeling for what is happening. If you have the accumulated data of thousands of these opinions you have a good feel.

Credit to the guy for doing this, but let's not misinterpret what happened and take the obvious evidence on face value.

I like this analysis. People are less likely to lie to a pollster than they are to simply not respond, so if the "neighbours" question gets a bigger response than the "you" question it will be automatically more accurate.

IanB2

Pro_Rata said:

IanB2 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

True, but split ticketing is also a ‘thing’, and often it indicates some awareness of the need for checks and balances among voters - it’s entirely credible that someone could vote for Trump as president and then cast a vote for a Democratic senator or representative thinking this would help keep him in check.

We see some of the same in the UK, where some voters split their votes among all the parties and others back opposition parties at council elections not so much as a protest but to try and counter-balance the party in power nationally. Sadly British local government is so emasculated that there’s really not much a council can do nowadays to ‘stand up’ to whatever the national government wants to do - those days disappeared after the 1980s.

Ultimately, it is a different choice. So, my established local Green councillors get my vote as a good local team, but the lead councillor doesn't get my vote in a GE.

Yes, but often made deliberately.

The most clear manifestation in the States is those 'safe' states for either Rep or Dem where, nevertheless, the elected official in charge of elections and the legal process is often from the opposite party.

eek

kjh said:

djt shares have been dropping since the election. Not sure I understand why. I thought they would surge on a Trump win. They are a meme stock. From a financials point of view the price should be zero, but that isn't how these stocks seem to be valued.

On another point @Luckyguy1983 thought that the story of the guy who made a fortune on betting on a poll on 'How you think your neighbours will vote' was actually really shy Trump voters really saying how they would vote. I disagree. Why not just take the poll on face value. Political parties canvas for just this sort of info. Many of us here do just this by talking to voters and know whether we are winning or losing and change our tactics accordingly. When you talk to neighbours you get a feeling for what is happening. If you have the accumulated data of thousands of these opinions you have a good feel.

Credit to the guy for doing this, but let's not misinterpret what happened and take the obvious evidence on face value.

I think the question only works if you have a binary question but when asked its going to give you a wisdom of crowds answer

Sean_F

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale:

Only three of yesterday's byelection results have been reported overnight:
Wyre, Marsh Mill: RUK gain from C
Blackpool, Bispham: Lab gain from C
Bracknell, Great Hollands: Lab hold
6 seats to declare today, Previews at andrewspreviews.substack.com

https://bsky.app/profile/andrewteale.bsky.social/post/3lag7xrvsiz2z

Still to come, five in Scotland and a Green defence in Herefordshire.

It looks like Reform will do very well in Blackpool and its environs in 2025.

The Bispham result was a bit odd. Labour’s vote share dropped sharply, but they squeezed a win, because the right wing vote was split between Conservatives, Reform, and an independent Conservative.

Sean_F

TimS said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Nothing builds nations like spilling blood against a common enemy.

The USA was forged through iron and blood.

Is there any EU leader who would be willing to do the same? The EU will never be a nation, unless their leaders are willing to smash in their enemies’ faces.

Switzerland notably managed to unite as a very stable confederation without smashing in its enemies faces. They did smash each others faces in a couple of times though.

It has quite a bloody past, but all a long time ago.

TimS

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

Sadly, Trump isn't fading, no matter how much some of us might wish he were. Macron, since the Parliamentary elections, definitely is.

ydoethur said:

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

As usual with the EU they desperately want to follow the American example without really understanding it, but it is completely irrelevant. This isn't just for the usual reasons that a 90% English-speaking agricultural republic of two million with common interests and traditions is always going to find it incomparably easier to cohere than the much more sprawling and diverse EU, but in this specific case America was never a "union of states" at all when it came to foreign policy - Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution made it completely explicit that that was a federal responsibility throughout. The states and counties were always completely out of it.

Only during the Civil War was that slightly disturbed.

Yes, but that in itself was an evolution of what had happened earlier - the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (for example) controlled foreign policy but had to get agreement from 9 states on anything.

I agree with you, I don't think it *will* happen in Europe, but I can see why others would think it *might*.

More likely is stronger European alliances separate from the EU structure.
There's a subset of countries - along with the UK - far keener on a military alliance against Russia than is the EU as a whole, where attitudes range from support, through indifference, to outright hostility.

A partition of Ukraine engineered by Trump might change that, but I don't see that it will.

Played around with some nice acronyms for this new alliance and I’m getting:

Flupfels.

(Finland, Lithuania, UK, Poland, France, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden).

Nice German or Belgian sounding word, in case either of those countries would like to join eventually.

viewcode

kamski said:

eek said:

Hell has actually frozen over

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an article that I can't disagree with.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/08/trump-restoration-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-germany/

While we will have problems with Trump being in the Whitehouse - it's nothing compared to the pain tariffs will impose on Germany who are already in a position of zero growth..

Certainly terrible news for countries like Germany who are big goods trading nations. But the more pressing concern people have right now is what happens with with Ukraine and NATO. Also what a Trump "solution" in Ukraine will mean for German politics.

Yesterday an acquaintance surprised me by saying that she was sick of Germany wasting so much money on Ukraine "when there are people in Germany who are cold and hungry" and therefore that she was going to vote AfD. It was the voting AfD bit that surprised me. I reminded her that I am myself an immigrant and that for me the AfD was an "absolutes No-Go" as they say round here.

The only people you can rely on are your family, and sometimes not even them. Acquaintances will not prioritise your needs over their own.

Big_G_NorthWales

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale:

Only three of yesterday's byelection results have been reported overnight:
Wyre, Marsh Mill: RUK gain from C
Blackpool, Bispham: Lab gain from C
Bracknell, Great Hollands: Lab hold
6 seats to declare today, Previews at andrewspreviews.substack.com

https://bsky.app/profile/andrewteale.bsky.social/post/3lag7xrvsiz2z

Still to come, five in Scotland and a Green defence in Herefordshire.

Details here confirming Reform are a real problem for both labour and conservatives

https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1854678224686792937?t=xafJ8qvhy8EcVl8vCCVWrw&s=19

https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1854675532954144892?t=3l7GujzUSDX-ffZ-aJA65Q&s=19

https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1854681121478353401?t=dmfWq7nDsmoroHJZfm9g_w&s=19

Theuniondivvie

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Just listening to former head of MI6 on R4 saying Putin has access to the best psychologists who will have framed the ideal statement for him to flatter Trump’s massive ego. Labour seem to have managed it off their own bat though still a deal of backtracking to do.

The other take was a land for peace deal in Ukraine now seems very much an accepted thing.

Accepted by whom ?

Accepted as a real prospect to be discussed by the ex head of MI6 and broadcaster to the great and the good, R4.

IanB2

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

Sadly, Trump isn't fading, no matter how much some of us might wish he were. Macron, since the Parliamentary elections, definitely is.

ydoethur said:

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

As usual with the EU they desperately want to follow the American example without really understanding it, but it is completely irrelevant. This isn't just for the usual reasons that a 90% English-speaking agricultural republic of two million with common interests and traditions is always going to find it incomparably easier to cohere than the much more sprawling and diverse EU, but in this specific case America was never a "union of states" at all when it came to foreign policy - Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution made it completely explicit that that was a federal responsibility throughout. The states and counties were always completely out of it.

Only during the Civil War was that slightly disturbed.

Yes, but that in itself was an evolution of what had happened earlier - the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (for example) controlled foreign policy but had to get agreement from 9 states on anything.

I agree with you, I don't think it *will* happen in Europe, but I can see why others would think it *might*.

In the years following the revolution the US endeavoured to remain decentralised and barely maintained any federal armed forces at all; the wars of the early nineteenth century changed that, although it was the Depression and two World Wars of the twentieth century that transformed the US into a relatively centralised global power.

IanB2

Sean_F said:

TimS said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Nothing builds nations like spilling blood against a common enemy.

The USA was forged through iron and blood.

Is there any EU leader who would be willing to do the same? The EU will never be a nation, unless their leaders are willing to smash in their enemies’ faces.

Switzerland notably managed to unite as a very stable confederation without smashing in its enemies faces. They did smash each others faces in a couple of times though.

It has quite a bloody past, but all a long time ago.

The Swiss began as robbers and crooks (and later mercenaries), and the extent to which that has changed through history can be left as an exercise for the reader.

Scott_xP

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

...

Stuartinromford

Sean_F said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale:

Only three of yesterday's byelection results have been reported overnight:
Wyre, Marsh Mill: RUK gain from C
Blackpool, Bispham: Lab gain from C
Bracknell, Great Hollands: Lab hold
6 seats to declare today, Previews at andrewspreviews.substack.com

https://bsky.app/profile/andrewteale.bsky.social/post/3lag7xrvsiz2z

Still to come, five in Scotland and a Green defence in Herefordshire.

It looks like Reform will do very well in Blackpool and its environs in 2025.

The Bispham result was a bit odd. Labour’s vote share dropped sharply, but they squeezed a win, because the right wing vote was split between Conservatives, Reform, and an independent Conservative.

Faded seaside town, innit?

And thanks for the local factors on Bispham- there are always local factors.

ydoethur

In important news:

Whoops-a-daisy Australia.

Although to be fair India A are having an equally torrid time.

TimS

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat. Charitably you could say they love a winner, no matter how despicable. Uncharitably you could say he’s done to them what he’s done to so many others: hypnotised them into a state of catatonic acceptance evolving into love.

Most of them on this side of the Atlantic retain some semblance of distancing and critique for now, but it won’t last. Watch as the right wing media in the UK slowly embraces MAGA. It’s not long till “Hurrah for the redcaps” articles start popping up in the Daily Mail.

TimS

Stuartinromford said:

Sean_F said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale:

Only three of yesterday's byelection results have been reported overnight:
Wyre, Marsh Mill: RUK gain from C
Blackpool, Bispham: Lab gain from C
Bracknell, Great Hollands: Lab hold
6 seats to declare today, Previews at andrewspreviews.substack.com

https://bsky.app/profile/andrewteale.bsky.social/post/3lag7xrvsiz2z

Still to come, five in Scotland and a Green defence in Herefordshire.

It looks like Reform will do very well in Blackpool and its environs in 2025.

The Bispham result was a bit odd. Labour’s vote share dropped sharply, but they squeezed a win, because the right wing vote was split between Conservatives, Reform, and an independent Conservative.

Faded seaside town, innit?.

Noted for fresh air and fun

JosiasJessop

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Just listening to former head of MI6 on R4 saying Putin has access to the best psychologists who will have framed the ideal statement for him to flatter Trump’s massive ego. Labour seem to have managed it off their own bat though still a deal of backtracking to do.

The other take was a land for peace deal in Ukraine now seems very much an accepted thing.

Accepted by whom ?

Accepted as a real prospect to be discussed by the ex head of MI6 and broadcaster to the great and the good, R4.

I have a slight suspicion that Trump and Putin (or Trump's 'advisers' and Putin) will do a deal. Give Putin a good chunk of Ukraine and a weakened Ukraine; and Putin will not invade anywhere else for another four years, allowing Trump to say he got 'peace'. This would also suit Putin, who needs time to rebuild his military.

A bug question is sanctions: do they remain on Russia, and if so, how strongly? Gaining Ukrainian territory is the visible part of what Putin wants. The removal of sanctions is the invisible, and perhaps most important, part.

nico679

We all know how this will probably end .

Ukraine loses those areas already under Russian control in exchange for an end to the war . A buffer zone is set up and Ukraine receIves security guarantees .

How long we take to get there I’m not sure . Putin might however feel enabled to think he can go for the whole country but could Trump say look , make a deal , proclaim mission accomplished or we’ll continue to support Ukraine .

Sean_F

IanB2 said:

Sean_F said:

TimS said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Nothing builds nations like spilling blood against a common enemy.

The USA was forged through iron and blood.

Is there any EU leader who would be willing to do the same? The EU will never be a nation, unless their leaders are willing to smash in their enemies’ faces.

Switzerland notably managed to unite as a very stable confederation without smashing in its enemies faces. They did smash each others faces in a couple of times though.

It has quite a bloody past, but all a long time ago.

The Swiss began as robbers and crooks (and later mercenaries), and the extent to which that has changed through history can be left as an exercise for the reader.

They were the fiercest soldiers in Europe from the 15th to 17th centuries.

But, as Vito Corleone puts it "a lawyer with his briefcase can steal as much as a hundred men, armed with guns." The same is true of investment bankers.

nico679

TimS said:

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat. Charitably you could say they love a winner, no matter how despicable. Uncharitably you could say he’s done to them what he’s done to so many others: hypnotised them into a state of catatonic acceptance evolving into love.

Most of them on this side of the Atlantic retain some semblance of distancing and critique for now, but it won’t last. Watch as the right wing media in the UK slowly embraces MAGA. It’s not long till “Hurrah for the redcaps” articles start popping up in the Daily Mail.

The right wing press will now likely go into make a trade deal with the USA mode .

Sean_F

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sean_F said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale:

Only three of yesterday's byelection results have been reported overnight:
Wyre, Marsh Mill: RUK gain from C
Blackpool, Bispham: Lab gain from C
Bracknell, Great Hollands: Lab hold
6 seats to declare today, Previews at andrewspreviews.substack.com

https://bsky.app/profile/andrewteale.bsky.social/post/3lag7xrvsiz2z

Still to come, five in Scotland and a Green defence in Herefordshire.

It looks like Reform will do very well in Blackpool and its environs in 2025.

The Bispham result was a bit odd. Labour’s vote share dropped sharply, but they squeezed a win, because the right wing vote was split between Conservatives, Reform, and an independent Conservative.

Faded seaside town, innit?.

Noted for fresh air and fun

My memories of Blackpool are going to a couple of Tory conferences. We stayed at a guesthouse, where one of the party asked why his bed was so damp and got the response "We had the Mongoloids staying here last week."

I remember emerging from the train station into a gale, carrying rain, and water off the Irish Sea, only to spot a dog rolling in horseshit. It summed the place up, really.

Driver

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

There will be and Trump won't be a candidate.

Harris has lost now, you can drop the paranoia...

Selebian

Not sure whether we've covered this important news story from the local metrpolis on the BBC: Trump-inspired window display gets town talking.

Shocked by the slogan to be honest. Make Selby great again? That implies it was great in the past

(The Abbey is a thing of beauty though - would be seen as a much bigger deal if it wasn't for York Minster just down the road)

ydoethur

Driver said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

There will be and Trump won't be a candidate.

Harris has lost now, you can drop the paranoia...

Hey, it's Trump who said he would be a dictator.

nico679

I think Harris will go for governor of California when Newsom has to finish because of term limits .

Big_G_NorthWales

TimS said:

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat. Charitably you could say they love a winner, no matter how despicable. Uncharitably you could say he’s done to them what he’s done to so many others: hypnotised them into a state of catatonic acceptance evolving into love.

Most of them on this side of the Atlantic retain some semblance of distancing and critique for now, but it won’t last. Watch as the right wing media in the UK slowly embraces MAGA. It’s not long till “Hurrah for the redcaps” articles start popping up in the Daily Mail.

Good morning

Trump's win has changed everything with unknown consequences

It has certainly seen many of his opponents spiral down into despair and disbelief

It is a warning to all politicians that whilst the electorate do not follow day to day politics, as the politically engaged like us do, they certainly have strong opinions and will exercise them when they are given the opportunity

I can see Farage milking this and having an increased effect here sadly, but it will be fascinating going forward

another_richard

DavidL said:

eek said:

Hell has actually frozen over

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an article that I can't disagree with.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/08/trump-restoration-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-germany/

While we will have problems with Trump being in the Whitehouse - it's nothing compared to the pain tariffs will impose on Germany who are already in a position of zero growth..

It makes this no confidence motion in January all the more ridiculous. When our opposition move a no confidence motion it is heard the next day and for very good reasons. Germany have not exactly been blessed with dynamic leadership in recent times but their government is in limbo now for months, critical months as Europe tries to respond to Trump's win. It's a disaster for them, for Ukraine and for the continent.

The Scholz government may not be dynamic but those of GDR Merkel and Gazprom Schroeder were always dynamically pro-Russia.

Nigelb

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Just listening to former head of MI6 on R4 saying Putin has access to the best psychologists who will have framed the ideal statement for him to flatter Trump’s massive ego. Labour seem to have managed it off their own bat though still a deal of backtracking to do.

The other take was a land for peace deal in Ukraine now seems very much an accepted thing.

Accepted by whom ?

Accepted as a real prospect to be discussed by the ex head of MI6 and broadcaster to the great and the good, R4.

I meant which countries, not which pundits.

JosiasJessop

TimS said:

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat. Charitably you could say they love a winner, no matter how despicable. Uncharitably you could say he’s done to them what he’s done to so many others: hypnotised them into a state of catatonic acceptance evolving into love.

Most of them on this side of the Atlantic retain some semblance of distancing and critique for now, but it won’t last. Watch as the right wing media in the UK slowly embraces MAGA. It’s not long till “Hurrah for the redcaps” articles start popping up in the Daily Mail.

"The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat."

What the media and the commentariat want are stories. Good government is usually bland and boring, generating few 'real' stories. Someone like Trump provides them with a massive number of stories, both now and in the future. Even when he does 'good' things, he does it in such a way that there is a story.

So Trump is much better for business than Harris - because he provides them with stories.

I remember a BBC tennis commentator talking when Pete Sampras announced his retirement. He said he was glad Sampras was retiring, as he was fairly boring to interview and did not generate many stories. I thought it was quite an admission about someone who was arguably the best ever player at the time.

algarkirk

The single most intelligent step the EU and UK can take for European democracy at this rather dark time is to comprehend that the UK left the EU over what was, in the great scheme of things, a little local difficulty, namely the power to derogate from freedom of movement.

A joint statement (or one just from the EU) saying that EU/single market/customs union/EEA/EFTA can be discussed om the basis of such a derogation would transform the current political climate. Once Europe starts getting serious about military matters it needs the UK, and we need them.

nico679

For all the pearl clutching of the US media they wanted 4 more years of WH drama to report on . It’s better for profits .

Nigelb

nico679 said:

We all know how this will probably end .

Ukraine loses those areas already under Russian control in exchange for an end to the war . A buffer zone is set up and Ukraine receIves security guarantees .

How long we take to get there I’m not sure . Putin might however feel enabled to think he can go for the whole country but could Trump say look , make a deal , proclaim mission accomplished or we’ll continue to support Ukraine .

No, we don't know.

Trumpworld has been briefing that the U.S. will have no part in those "guarantees". In that case, Trump's willingness to hand over slices of Ukraine extends only as far as Ukraine and Europe are willing to accept his selling them out.

How far is that ?

Alanbrooke

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Fishing said:

Gardenwalker said:

No British PM has had this kind of strategic clarity since Blair.

https://x.com/emmanuelmacron/status/1854606082473148791?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg

For better or for worse, Macron *is* the leader of Europe, which is probably why Trump called him first.

As usual with Macron, it sounds reasonable until you start to think it through.

To begin with, America is a country and Europe a geographical expression. Saying there should be an EU foreign policy is fine in theory, but can anyone imagine a foreign policy on anything remotely important and controversial that would unite Ireland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Germany?

Then there's the fact that most smaller European countries, still the majority, have no tradition of assertive foreign policy, and no interest in it either.

There's also the EU's disastrous record on any foreign policy issue it touches, starting with the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s, and most recently its appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They make its economic record look good.

Also any significant EU move in this area, for instance to abolish unanimity in foreign policy decisions, would need treaty changes, which the EU avoids like the plague these days because of the boring need to refer them to voters, where they have a terrible record. Ireland would need a referendum and there's no way anything questioning neutrality would pass.

Finally, there's the small fact that EU countries have puny armed forces and no money to increase them significantly. And, since they let us leave, their situation is even worse.

What the deluded and fading narcissist obviously wants is for every EU country to throw its weight behind whatever France, and especially he, want to do at any moment. Even if, like confronting/appeasing Putin, it is exactly the opposite of what he was doing last month. And perhaps some EU leaders will be starry-eyed enough to fall for it. But I think that, over the long term, it's Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A lot of this is logical, although with your last paragraph I thought for moment you meant Trump.

However - it is worth pointing out that the US didn't really see itself as a country for over a hundred years after its foundation. It saw itself as 'a union of states' (hence the name). In the civil war, the Southerners saw themselves as sticking with their country in secession even those (like Lee) who thought seceding a very bad idea. It also meant Lincoln had to jump through innumerable legal hoops at the start of the Civil War, including making it clear that individuals not states were in rebellion so Taney wouldn't try something clever via the Constitution to justify secession.

It took a number of changes, many of them external pressures (e.g. the colonial ventures of the 19th century and substantial immigration from Europe) to alter that.

Do I think that will happen in Europe? No, actually, mostly for the reasons you've said. Also, Europe is rather more ossified in its differences than America was. Equally, it isn't impossible it could under pressure from external forces (looks hard at Russia).

Nothing builds nations like spilling blood against a common enemy.

The USA was forged through iron and blood.

Is there any EU leader who would be willing to do the same? The EU will never be a nation, unless their leaders are willing to smash in their enemies’ faces.

Macron is, but other country's blood obviously

Nigelb

nico679 said:

TimS said:

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat. Charitably you could say they love a winner, no matter how despicable. Uncharitably you could say he’s done to them what he’s done to so many others: hypnotised them into a state of catatonic acceptance evolving into love.

Most of them on this side of the Atlantic retain some semblance of distancing and critique for now, but it won’t last. Watch as the right wing media in the UK slowly embraces MAGA. It’s not long till “Hurrah for the redcaps” articles start popping up in the Daily Mail.

The right wing press will now likely go into make a trade deal with the USA mode .

Everyone will be in that mode. Would you rather we start a trade war ?
We're somewhat better placed than (say) Germany for that negotiation, but it's going to be painful. We simply have to accept that for the time being the US is, in trade terms, something of an adversary.

Taz

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Very true that !

Carnyx

Selebian said:

Not sure whether we've covered this important news story from the local metrpolis on the BBC: Trump-inspired window display gets town talking.

Shocked by the slogan to be honest. Make Selby great again? That implies it was great in the past

(The Abbey is a thing of beauty though - would be seen as a much bigger deal if it wasn't for York Minster just down the road)

'[...] one commenter with a grudge against a neighbouring town was keen to build a wall "to keep Goole out".'

Malmesbury

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

It's a thing in politics not to make such definite statements on the record.

I can recall the media doing the same to people in Conservative government re foreign leaders. Remember the whole "Full Tonto" storm? Which included some people here demanding the UK Defence Sec resign.

On the Channel 4 "election night", there was a desperation from the talking heads to try and get Boris Johnson to say not nice things about Trump. To create exactly this kind of story.

Try and get someone on the record about Xi and the actual, literal genocide his regime has been committing over the decades.

TimS

JosiasJessop said:

TimS said:

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat. Charitably you could say they love a winner, no matter how despicable. Uncharitably you could say he’s done to them what he’s done to so many others: hypnotised them into a state of catatonic acceptance evolving into love.

Most of them on this side of the Atlantic retain some semblance of distancing and critique for now, but it won’t last. Watch as the right wing media in the UK slowly embraces MAGA. It’s not long till “Hurrah for the redcaps” articles start popping up in the Daily Mail.

"The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat."

What the media and the commentariat want are stories. Good government is usually bland and boring, generating few 'real' stories. Someone like Trump provides them with a massive number of stories, both now and in the future. Even when he does 'good' things, he does it in such a way that there is a story.

So Trump is much better for business than Harris - because he provides them with stories.

I remember a BBC tennis commentator talking when Pete Sampras announced his retirement. He said he was glad Sampras was retiring, as he was fairly boring to interview and did not generate many stories. I thought it was quite an admission about someone who was arguably the best ever player at the time.

I think there’s an ideological aspect to this too though. A large number of people on the populist-adjacent right of politics who have felt the competing tug of head and heart over Trump for years.

The head, the moral compass, all those things learned at school and Sunday school: they have been saying “Trump is a bad man, a misogynist and narcissist, a liar, a budding autocrat. He must be condemned”. The heart, deep down - the subconscious Mr Hyde to the conscious Dr Jevkyll - that’s been whispering “Trump is on my side. Trump hates the things and the people I hate. Trump is fun. Secretly I’d love to live the way he lives. I kind of like him”.

While he was a loser the head easily won out. Now he’s a winner again the heart is coming riding back.

Nigelb

Driver said:

ydoethur said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I think people are over-thinking this election.
Trump lost in 2020 because of his inadequate response to COVID.
Biden/Harris lost in 2024 because of the inflation caused by the government stimulus to the COVID-hit economy.

If that is the reason we should forecast the Republicans' worst result since 1936 in 2028 given what Trump's proposing to unleash.

If of course there is an election in 2028.

There will be and Trump won't be a candidate.

Harris has lost now, you can drop the paranoia...

And you can drop the insouciance.
It's not paranoid to be concerned about what Trump might do towards weakening US democracy.

Big_G_NorthWales

algarkirk said:

The single most intelligent step the EU and UK can take for European democracy at this rather dark time is to comprehend that the UK left the EU over what was, in the great scheme of things, a little local difficulty, namely the power to derogate from freedom of movement.

A joint statement (or one just from the EU) saying that EU/single market/customs union/EEA/EFTA can be discussed om the basis of such a derogation would transform the current political climate. Once Europe starts getting serious about military matters it needs the UK, and we need them.

You are talking common sense and a sensible solution

However, freedom of movement is at the heart of the EU project and I cannot see it happening

TheScreamingEagles

Selebian said:

Not sure whether we've covered this important news story from the local metrpolis on the BBC: Trump-inspired window display gets town talking.

Shocked by the slogan to be honest. Make Selby great again? That implies it was great in the past

(The Abbey is a thing of beauty though - would be seen as a much bigger deal if it wasn't for York Minster just down the road)

I might do something similar except it would say

‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN’

Malmesbury

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Just listening to former head of MI6 on R4 saying Putin has access to the best psychologists who will have framed the ideal statement for him to flatter Trump’s massive ego. Labour seem to have managed it off their own bat though still a deal of backtracking to do.

The other take was a land for peace deal in Ukraine now seems very much an accepted thing.

Accepted by whom ?

Accepted as a real prospect to be discussed by the ex head of MI6 and broadcaster to the great and the good, R4.

I meant which countries, not which pundits.

It's a matrix of countries - and political groupings within those countries.

For example, there is a quite substantial support (but minority) for *imposing* land-for-peace deal in Germany. Because of a belief that the current economic problems are as a result of the war.

stodge

algarkirk said:

The single most intelligent step the EU and UK can take for European democracy at this rather dark time is to comprehend that the UK left the EU over what was, in the great scheme of things, a little local difficulty, namely the power to derogate from freedom of movement.

A joint statement (or one just from the EU) saying that EU/single market/customs union/EEA/EFTA can be discussed om the basis of such a derogation would transform the current political climate. Once Europe starts getting serious about military matters it needs the UK, and we need them.

So it's the Four Freedoms for everyone else and the Three Freedoms for us or are we going to allow the EU countries to pick and choose which Freedoms they want as well?

The four Freedoms:

Free movement of Goods
Free movement of Capital
Freedom to establish and provide Services
Free movement of Labour

I suspect the intention of Freedom of Labour was to allow people to move freely round Europe but working and studying - the notion of moving from X to Y "to look for work" is where it's come unstuck as naturally people from poorer areas have gone to the richer areas or simply followed the money as people have for centuries.

The alternative would be a bureaucracy of work permits or visas whereby you could only enter Y from X if you had a confirmed job offer and confirmed accommodation in Y. That's how many other countries operate and it works for them but we (or rather Europe) didn't want the complications of such a system - better to let people freely from X to Y, A, B, C or wherever just as they could within X itself.

TimS

Nigelb said:

nico679 said:

TimS said:

nico679 said:

Why are the media continuing to go on about past comments made by Labour about Trump .

His own VP made similar statements !

As long as you arse lick Trump he’s quite happy to be forgiving.

The media are in awe of Trump. So are the commentariat. Charitably you could say they love a winner, no matter how despicable. Uncharitably you could say he’s done to them what he’s done to so many others: hypnotised them into a state of catatonic acceptance evolving into love.

Most of them on this side of the Atlantic retain some semblance of distancing and critique for now, but it won’t last. Watch as the right wing media in the UK slowly embraces MAGA. It’s not long till “Hurrah for the redcaps” articles start popping up in the Daily Mail.

The right wing press will now likely go into make a trade deal with the USA mode .

Everyone will be in that mode. Would you rather we start a trade war ?
We're somewhat better placed than (say) Germany for that negotiation, but it's going to be painful. We simply have to accept that for the time being the US is, in trade terms, something of an adversary.

There’s very little to be gained from any realistic trade deal. We are an extremely weak negotiating partner facing a very protectionist, and very economically powerful country.

The most likely outcome would be the sort of one sided arrangement that would deliver to our farmers something rather less palatable than 20% inheritance tax on their estates.

Alanbrooke

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

Hell has actually frozen over

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an article that I can't disagree with.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/08/trump-restoration-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-germany/

While we will have problems with Trump being in the Whitehouse - it's nothing compared to the pain tariffs will impose on Germany who are already in a position of zero growth..

It makes this no confidence motion in January all the more ridiculous. When our opposition move a no confidence motion it is heard the next day and for very good reasons. Germany have not exactly been blessed with dynamic leadership in recent times but their government is in limbo now for months, critical months as Europe tries to respond to Trump's win. It's a disaster for them, for Ukraine and for the continent.

The Scholz government may not be dynamic but those of GDR Merkel and Gazprom Schroeder were always dynamically pro-Russia.

I still think when the files are opened Merkel will be revealed as an FSB agent.

Theuniondivvie

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TimS said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr, Taz, " GMB played the far from cerebral Angela Rayner from 2020 describing Donald Trump as a buffoon who should not be in office this morning."

Given her previous form, that's nicer than what she said about Conservatives in this country.

Credit to both Rayner and Lammy for undertaking some largely correct analysis of Trump, and I’m willing to forgive them their more recent diplomacy given the realpolitik of the situation. So long as they don’t turn fully into simpering supplicants to the US like British politicians so often do.

In the meantime the Lib Dems will have the luxury of saying what most Labour (and Tory) politicians think.

Just listening to former head of MI6 on R4 saying Putin has access to the best psychologists who will have framed the ideal statement for him to flatter Trump’s massive ego. Labour seem to have managed it off their own bat though still a deal of backtracking to do.

The other take was a land for peace deal in Ukraine now seems very much an accepted thing.

Accepted by whom ?

Accepted as a real prospect to be discussed by the ex head of MI6 and broadcaster to the great and the good, R4.

I meant which countries, not which pundits.

They didn't break it down (no on has much of clue how that would pan out anyway), I just thought it was interesting in terms of mood music.
I've always thought (and said at the beginning when PBers were doing 'hilarious' jokes about T34s being reactivated) that absent total victory or defeat for one side or another, the Russo-Ukraine war would end in a negotiation with either Russia or Ukraine in an advantageous postion. Unfortunately atm it seems Ukraine is at a disadvantage.
Maybe at the time of the Kursk successes and with a view to a possible Trump II, Zhelensky should have made a serious bid for a negotiation. Perhaps he did, we just don't know.

Pulpstar

nico679 said:

I think Harris will go for governor of California when Newsom has to finish because of term limits .

Given California's rightward shift and the fact voters are less party bound for the Governor's mansion than other races the GOP could win with the right candidate against her.