Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?
She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.
Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).
And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.
More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.
Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.
That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.
It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.
If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.
This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
That's a very interesting counterpoint, thanks.
People used to say that the more roads you built, the more roads you needed to build. Might it be the same for houses, if you have policies that do not deter it? Your second homes example might be pertinent.
Part of the reason house prices are high in Britain is because there is a culture of borrowing as much money as possible to buy the best house in the best location, as being the best choice for your future happiness and financial security.
I do think there is an absolute shortage of housing supply in Britain, but distribution, and financing are also big factors. You need to make sure that the right people buy the new houses, and that they don't spend all their money doing so.
As well as the policies to dissuade landlords that Max mentions, I think you also want to reduce the income multiples that the banks lend on. As well as building lots of housing.
If you build enough that the market clears, prices go down. The only reason that prices are "whatever people can afford plus a pound" is because there is a shortage.
Not all houses are the same. So if prices drop overall, a lot of people are still going to max out their house-buying budget in order to buy a larger house in a better location. Now, sure, if people derive extra utility from a better house in a better location then that's a good thing, but if you are hoping that one of the benefits of building lots of houses to reduce house prices is that it will lower people's spending on houses, so that more money will go to more productive parts of the economy, then you might be disappointed, unless you also restrict credit.
Having lived in places where there is no housing shortage, no, everyone doesn’t try to get an 8 bedroom house.
Hell, when I was in Peru, I could have gone full drug lord - rented a palace. Didn’t.
We stayed in the family house - the areas not great, but the locals have their own police force and keep order. Empty bedrooms in the house - tons of space. And this was how a retired army drill instructor lived, there.
They could have spent 60% of their income on a fancier place - but that would be madness. Why would they want that?
Similarly, in France, people giggle at the idiots who mortgage themselves to the hilt to buy the local chateaux. Good luck keeping the roof on….
The whole attitude to property in this country has been distorted. For generations. By insane prices caused by an insane lack of supply.
What you would see is some effects as the ridiculous stuff unwinds
There is a huge demand for flats in London, because if all the 30 somethings living in shared accommodation - until they can just get a tiny one bed flat.
Good. On another topic, I don't think it should be the job of the police to investigate people once they're dead. That should be the job of another organisation. The police are there to deal with matters concerning the living. Any time and money they spend investigating dead people is time and money that isn't being used to investigate crime involving people who are alive and can therefore be held accountable.
One thought about comparing ye olden days with today wrt personal finances.
My paternal granddad was middle-class. By the end of the 1940s they had four children between mid-teens and toddling; he worked in a steady job for the council, whilst his wife was a housewife. They had a car, a 'holiday' home a few miles outside of the city, and a main home with mortgage.
With just one 'ordinary' salary, they managed to feed and clothe themselves and the kids, pay the mortgage and fuel for the car, and save. Granddad cycled into work every day. They had pets and some animals like hens in their small garden.
They were relatively lucky. But what else did they need to spend money on?
Now, as well as a mortgage, we seem to spend much more on clothes and fashion. we chuck away loads of old clothes, rather than make do and mend. We 'need' not just TV, but loads of 'packages' from Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc. We pay for broadband Internet, mobile phones, tablets, gadgets, load of plastic trash toys for kids, coffees from the local coffee shop, etc, etc.
We just have so much we both need, and are persuaded, to spend money on nowadays; things that there were no real alternatives for 50, 60 or 70 years ago. I wouldn't want to do without many of those things, but I'm unsure many of them are totally necessary, or make us much happier.
I'd be interested to know if some of our (ahem) older contributors agreed with this impression, as I obviously was not around!
Life in the early sixties for my wife and I was much as you described and we struggled a little with the mortgage on a single income as my wife stayed at home and looked after our three children
Of course coming out of the war years, and I still remember rationing, we were far more contented with much less and the family were at the heart of our lives, though we did belong to various local organisations, was PTA chair, and raised thousands for local charities
I will always remember we annually sponsored a coach of very poor and disadvantaged children to come to the seaside from Rochdale, and they had not seen the sea before and ran into it fully clothed
I would just say we had pressures, but they were very different to today and my wife and I really worry for the young especially
And whilst talking of my wife, as she stayed at home and looked after our children with only a small part time job in her fifties her state pension is just £5,250 pa
I presume they will go to Turkey as that is where a lot of their wealth is. However, will anybody be very surprised if mysterious accidents start happening to them.
Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.
given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
Surely, like anything else, the answer is "it depends".
I mean, would you really argue the low skilled immigration to Dubai and the UAE, or to Singapore, been a drain on their economies?
So I suspect it depends on the part of the country and on the industry. It is also worth remembering that the parts of the US that have seen the most stagnant economies, are the ones with the least low skilled immigration. (Albeit, I suspect that the causation is the other way around.)
Oh this is going to be a fun discussion.
The important thing to note is that immigrants to Dubai have no recourse to public funds, no path to citizenship, will be deported if they lose they job, and deported if they appear in front of a court found guilty of anything more serious than dropping litter. They will be taken from the court to the airport, and can appeal at their own expense from abroad.
I'm not in disagreement (heck, we've had this discussion before): I'm just pointing out that all [x] is [y] statements should usually be caveated.
The point is that low skilled immigration is great, so long as those immigrants will never claim benefits nor become citizens, and can be summarily deported if unemployed or convicted.
Great for who?
Their temporary host country. Singapore, Dubai…
Sounds to me like rank exploitation. It might benefit some but I don’t think "great" is the right word for it.
Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.
given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
Surely, like anything else, the answer is "it depends".
I mean, would you really argue the low skilled immigration to Dubai and the UAE, or to Singapore, been a drain on their economies?
So I suspect it depends on the part of the country and on the industry. It is also worth remembering that the parts of the US that have seen the most stagnant economies, are the ones with the least low skilled immigration. (Albeit, I suspect that the causation is the other way around.)
Oh this is going to be a fun discussion.
The important thing to note is that immigrants to Dubai have no recourse to public funds, no path to citizenship, will be deported if they lose they job, and deported if they appear in front of a court found guilty of anything more serious than dropping litter. They will be taken from the court to the airport, and can appeal at their own expense from abroad.
So sort of slaves ?
My wife's family are Sri Lankan, so I've read enough about how people from that part of the world are treated in the Gulf to know I will never spend a second longer in any of those countries than I need to to change planes.
Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.
given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
Surely, like anything else, the answer is "it depends".
I mean, would you really argue the low skilled immigration to Dubai and the UAE, or to Singapore, been a drain on their economies?
So I suspect it depends on the part of the country and on the industry. It is also worth remembering that the parts of the US that have seen the most stagnant economies, are the ones with the least low skilled immigration. (Albeit, I suspect that the causation is the other way around.)
Oh this is going to be a fun discussion.
The important thing to note is that immigrants to Dubai have no recourse to public funds, no path to citizenship, will be deported if they lose they job, and deported if they appear in front of a court found guilty of anything more serious than dropping litter. They will be taken from the court to the airport, and can appeal at their own expense from abroad.
So sort of slaves ?
My wife's family are Sri Lankan, so I've read enough about how people from that part of the world are treated in the Gulf to know I will never spend a second longer in any of those countries than I need to to change planes.
Yes, it’s rather more comparable with the old ‘gang master’ system, than Sandpit’s temporary agricultural workers.
I presume they will go to Turkey as that is where a lot of their wealth is. However, will anybody be very surprised if mysterious accidents start happening to them.
I presume they will go to Turkey as that is where a lot of their wealth is. However, will anybody be very surprised if mysterious accidents start happening to them.
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I look forward to Farage donating a third or a quarter of his home and other properties to Russia for 'peace'. And he can send one of his kids there as well, as it is people, not just territory.
Oh sorry, it's alright to force Ukraine to give up territory for peace, but you won't do it yourself?
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
I don't believe in horoscopes. I'm a Leo and we're naturally sceptical.
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
I'm a Scorpio too, but it's a load of mystic mumbo-jumbo!
Consider: for much of November, the Sun lies in the actual, real constellation of Libra...
Now it has emerged that the attacks on the Jewish football fans were planned in advance and co-ordinated using WhatsApp and Telegram. The Telegraph has seen messages from a group chat called Buurthuis, a Dutch word for a type of community centre, which were posted on Wednesday, the day before the match.
One thought about comparing ye olden days with today wrt personal finances.
My paternal granddad was middle-class. By the end of the 1940s they had four children between mid-teens and toddling; he worked in a steady job for the council, whilst his wife was a housewife. They had a car, a 'holiday' home a few miles outside of the city, and a main home with mortgage.
With just one 'ordinary' salary, they managed to feed and clothe themselves and the kids, pay the mortgage and fuel for the car, and save. Granddad cycled into work every day. They had pets and some animals like hens in their small garden.
They were relatively lucky. But what else did they need to spend money on?
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
I'm a Scorpio too, but it's a load of mystic mumbo-jumbo!
Consider: for much of November, the Sun lies in the actual, real constellation of Libra...
Houses are based on the Earth's rotation, not it’s trip round the sun.
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
I don't believe in horoscopes. I'm a Leo and we're naturally sceptical.
I checked my horoscope once, but decided they were taking the Pisces.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
"We spend $350 million each week on Chinese tat. Let's increase the cost to $450 million instead."
As not featured on the side of a GOP bus.
What we are witnessing is an epochal shift in the orthodoxy, perhaps the first one in my lifetime.
The post-WWII economic order was underpinned by the idea that free trade makes everyone richer, and the freer the market, the freer the people, and so on.
This was an orthodoxy spread by Western nations on the basis that it enriched western nations. And for a while, it worked. It enabled global GDP to grow immeasurably and we benefited, in the form of cheap everything.
Then, somewhere along the line, it stopped working for Western nations. This probably started somewhere in the 80s. We couldn't out-compete developing nations as manufacturers, so we became service economies. This great restructuring led to some winners (the service sector) at the expense of the losers (manual workers), creating an increasing gap between rich and poor in Western nations.
But then, globalization reached a tipping point. The primary beneficiaries were no longer the western nations that spread this free trade orthodoxy, but the eager developing nations who gradually began to take jobs, wealth and opportunity away from western nations, while developing service economies of their own - leaving us with less and less to trade.
As a consequence western nations, refusing to accept declining living standards, lived 'on the credit card' for far too long. Increasing financialisation led to the credit crunch, from which most Western economies never recovered. Still refusing to accept declining living standards, we borrowed more and more, all the while our economies went into further stagnation or decline.
Now, finally, the West is wising up to the idea that global free trade doesn't enrich the West half as much as we thought it did. Our economies are on their knees, flooded with cheap tat from foreign factories, with hollowed out town centres and asset prices (e.g. housing) far in excess of our ability to pay for those assets through our own labour.
And people are bloody annoyed about it. Hence Trump (x2), hence Brexit, and so on.
So finally the epochal certainty that free trade is best for the West is coming to an end. Because while it has made a small elite richer, most people feel poorer - despite the abundance of cheap tat to buy.
TL;DR, for most of our lifetimes, the Western Liberal Orthodoxy has been completely focused around free trade, because it benefited us. Now the developing nations we previously exploited have caught up, and are, in many respects, exploiting us, Western voters are using what little power they have to elect governments that belatedly challenge this orthodoxy, onshore jobs and opportunities, and reverse what they see as the terminal decline of the last two decades.
I don’t know how closely we align politically but I always find your posts interesting and I find very little to disagree with.
I think if Labour wants to win again, it’s going to have make progress on immigration and the economy. But that means changes that working people can actually feel. That’s the crucial thing.
I am not sure how relevant the culture war really is, I am not sure people are really voting on that basis and to be honest SKS doesn’t strike me as very interested in that kind of stuff anyway.
Thoughts?
Culture war stuff is revanchist window dressing to a deeper feeling of western supremacy dying away. South Park had it best with their 'memberberries' skit. People remember when things used to be better, but falsely correlate that to times when people were less liberal and openminded. We were just richer, was all.
Immigration is a problem, because GDP per capita has been stagnant since 2008. People are happy with immigration when they feel it benefits them. If they feel they're competing for ever scarcer resources, less so. We haven't built enough houses, schools, roads, railways, prisons, really anything to keep up with the huge increase in population. Because we can't afford it. It's the old 'look after your own before you look after others' writ large. Hence why people are incensed by the three billion a year hotel bill for asylum seekers.
Politically my views are a mad hodge-podge of autodidactic thought, I often describe myself as 'a libertarian who thought Marx had the right diagnosis but the wrong solution' although I'm no longer sure what the right answers are. I'm good at poking holes in things and pointing out the problems, less certain any more that I have any answers.
I'm tempted to agree with Ray Dallio that we are simply witnessing the end of an era in which one empire had total control (and from which we largely benefited as a satellite state of the US) into a world that looks multipolar, but will probably be dominated by one of the emerging economies within the next twenty or so years.
People under a certain age were already pretty liberal and open-minded by the late 1990s. I'm not sure how things have improved on that front since then, apart from some old people with more traditional views no longer being around.
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
Do you know? I'd have put money on you as a Scorpio!
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I hope we will.
There is broad cross party support (excluding Reform and the Greens) for Ukraine.
It's also worth remembering that done right, support involves British jobs making kit for the Ukrainians.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
Just as importantly, Putin can’t agree to Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine in the EU, either.
The whole war was predicated on Russian Irredentism. The first rule of Irredentism Club is that you demand everything your country ever touched.
Ukraine is heartland in the Russian Nationalist Mythology. The colour revolution was intolerable because it was a sign that Ukraine wanted to join Europe. That it was turning its back on Russian Culture.
For Ukraine to join NATO (The Main Enemy) and the EU would be a public, humiliating defeat for Putin. Even if he keeps the bit of Ukraine his troops are on, the rest is gone. Forever.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I hope we will.
There is broad cross party support (excluding Reform and the Greens) for Ukraine.
It's also worth remembering that done right, support involves British jobs making kit for the Ukrainians.
Just wait till the Ajax is unleashed on the Steppe.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I’m sure Europe and Ukraine will say no to a Putin Trump carve up. I can’t imagine a Putin Trump carve up they could remotely be close to accepting.
There is also the question what “ending the war” actually looks like. Weapons and violence falls silent?
Ukraine War is a huge problem for Donald Trump, now he’s measured against promising an easy fix. Take the matter of Russian money and assets being held - if he gives it back to Putin the aggressor it won’t go down well at all.
He can bullshit his way to election wins in his lifetime, but history will judge his record and legacy as trash. And that is completely the wrong way round from doing politics properly.
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
I'm a Scorpio too, but it's a load of mystic mumbo-jumbo!
Consider: for much of November, the Sun lies in the actual, real constellation of Libra...
Houses are based on the Earth's rotation, not it’s trip round the sun.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I hope we will.
There is broad cross party support (excluding Reform and the Greens) for Ukraine.
It's also worth remembering that done right, support involves British jobs making kit for the Ukrainians.
Get Aldermaston on the case. Wonder what the going rate would be for a nice, medium yield, low maintenance nuke?
A decision on a new US ambassador is likely to be taken within days, with David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Cathy Ashton all on the shortlist, the Guardian understands.
Guardian
Well that'll improve things 😞😞😞😞😞
The United States made Shirley Temple an Ambassador. What would be our equivalent for this appointment? Billie Piper?
Holly Willoughby would be an eye catching appointment.
I would like to see Helen Skelton get it. 👍🏻
Holy lumping F***, what a bunch of dumb losers, surprised if any of them could tie a shoelace, especially dumbo Holly
We could send you to be UK Ambassador Malc.
Why does it have to be an Oxbridge type with Whitehall background, why not a Scot? Trump has Scottish roots and runs a hotel in Scotland, he would love to have you there, seated next to him at all the dinners, to cut through all the crap and tell it like it is.
I could sort him out big time, be no crawling or pussyfooting about , he would get his horoscope read. PS: His hotel is just down the road , I could meet him there for sure.
I read horoscopes too. What’s going on in houses and planets on someone’s birthday so surreally matches their personality. Judging by how Trump goes about things, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under a black moon. I expect the planets were all out of place on his birthday as well.
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
I don't believe in horoscopes. I'm a Leo and we're naturally sceptical.
I checked my horoscope once, but decided they were taking the Pisces.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
Just as importantly, Putin can’t agree to Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine in the EU, either.
The whole war was predicated on Russian Irredentism. The first rule of Irredentism Club is that you demand everything your country ever touched.
Ukraine is heartland in the Russian Nationalist Mythology. The colour revolution was intolerable because it was a sign that Ukraine wanted to join Europe. That it was turning its back on Russian Culture.
For Ukraine to join NATO (The Main Enemy) and the EU would be a public, humiliating defeat for Putin. Even if he keeps the bit of Ukraine his troops are on, the rest is gone. Forever.
The Russians denied Ukraine had agency. It has been an expensive error.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
In the age of the ICBM and cyber warfare it doesn't matter whether a threat is on your continent or not. That's why America is in NATO in the first place.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I’m sure Europe and Ukraine will say no to a Putin Trump carve up. I can’t imagine a Putin Trump carve up they could remotely be close to accepting.
There is also the question what “ending the war” actually looks like. Weapons and violence falls silent?
Ukraine War is a huge problem for Donald Trump, now he’s measured against promising an easy fix. Take the matter of Russian money and assets being held - if he gives it back to Putin the aggressor it won’t go down well at all.
He can bullshit his way to election wins in his lifetime, but history will judge his record and legacy as trash. And that is completely the wrong way round from doing politics properly.
There's a lot to be said for the concept of Judgement as one of the final things. It doesn't have to be Religious- just a brief realisation of what your life was about. Trump has spent a long time evading that, with the consequences we now see.
But that's his problem, not ours. Ukraine is a trickier one. Only a psycho or a loon or an indoctrinated nitwit would actively want Putin's invasion to succeed, sure. But how far does our collective wish for it to fail go, especially when it inconveniences us or (shock horror) might require taxes to go up.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I hope we will.
There is broad cross party support (excluding Reform and the Greens) for Ukraine.
It's also worth remembering that done right, support involves British jobs making kit for the Ukrainians.
Get Aldermaston on the case. Wonder what the going rate would be for a nice, medium yield, low maintenance nuke?
150kt - use an HEU core, no boosting.
Could be a great export product line.
A Davey Crockett MKXVIII Firebolt?
I did wonder… and yes! Christmas present for the Malmesbury who thought he had everything.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Sure, all of those are European neighbours.
Have you been taking geography lessons from HYUFD ?
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I hope we will.
There is broad cross party support (excluding Reform and the Greens) for Ukraine.
It's also worth remembering that done right, support involves British jobs making kit for the Ukrainians.
Get Aldermaston on the case. Wonder what the going rate would be for a nice, medium yield, low maintenance nuke?
150kt - use an HEU core, no boosting.
Could be a great export product line.
A Davey Crockett MKXVIII Firebolt?
I did wonder… and yes! Christmas present for the Malmesbury who thought he had everything.
A nuclear weapon plushie, to curl up in bed with.
Always liked this one
The Sarge : “Get a nuclear weapon from the armoury, Private Pile. And DONT! FUCKING! DROP! IT!
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Sure, all of those are European neighbours.
Have you been taking geography lessons from HYUFD ?
What has proximity got to do with it? China has far more ability to reach us with conventional attacks than Russia has. Saudi Arabia preaches its poisonous salafist doctrine in UK mosques and could (and arguably does) cause immeasurable danger through that. Russia successfully invading the whole of Central and Western Europe to get to us is a vanishingly unlikely scenario.
"We spend $350 million each week on Chinese tat. Let's increase the cost to $450 million instead."
As not featured on the side of a GOP bus.
What we are witnessing is an epochal shift in the orthodoxy, perhaps the first one in my lifetime.
The post-WWII economic order was underpinned by the idea that free trade makes everyone richer, and the freer the market, the freer the people, and so on.
This was an orthodoxy spread by Western nations on the basis that it enriched western nations. And for a while, it worked. It enabled global GDP to grow immeasurably and we benefited, in the form of cheap everything.
Then, somewhere along the line, it stopped working for Western nations. This probably started somewhere in the 80s. We couldn't out-compete developing nations as manufacturers, so we became service economies. This great restructuring led to some winners (the service sector) at the expense of the losers (manual workers), creating an increasing gap between rich and poor in Western nations.
But then, globalization reached a tipping point. The primary beneficiaries were no longer the western nations that spread this free trade orthodoxy, but the eager developing nations who gradually began to take jobs, wealth and opportunity away from western nations, while developing service economies of their own - leaving us with less and less to trade.
As a consequence western nations, refusing to accept declining living standards, lived 'on the credit card' for far too long. Increasing financialisation led to the credit crunch, from which most Western economies never recovered. Still refusing to accept declining living standards, we borrowed more and more, all the while our economies went into further stagnation or decline.
Now, finally, the West is wising up to the idea that global free trade doesn't enrich the West half as much as we thought it did. Our economies are on their knees, flooded with cheap tat from foreign factories, with hollowed out town centres and asset prices (e.g. housing) far in excess of our ability to pay for those assets through our own labour.
And people are bloody annoyed about it. Hence Trump (x2), hence Brexit, and so on.
So finally the epochal certainty that free trade is best for the West is coming to an end. Because while it has made a small elite richer, most people feel poorer - despite the abundance of cheap tat to buy.
TL;DR, for most of our lifetimes, the Western Liberal Orthodoxy has been completely focused around free trade, because it benefited us. Now the developing nations we previously exploited have caught up, and are, in many respects, exploiting us, Western voters are using what little power they have to elect governments that belatedly challenge this orthodoxy, onshore jobs and opportunities, and reverse what they see as the terminal decline of the last two decades.
I don’t know how closely we align politically but I always find your posts interesting and I find very little to disagree with.
I think if Labour wants to win again, it’s going to have make progress on immigration and the economy. But that means changes that working people can actually feel. That’s the crucial thing.
I am not sure how relevant the culture war really is, I am not sure people are really voting on that basis and to be honest SKS doesn’t strike me as very interested in that kind of stuff anyway.
Thoughts?
Culture war stuff is revanchist window dressing to a deeper feeling of western supremacy dying away. South Park had it best with their 'memberberries' skit. People remember when things used to be better, but falsely correlate that to times when people were less liberal and openminded. We were just richer, was all.
Immigration is a problem, because GDP per capita has been stagnant since 2008. People are happy with immigration when they feel it benefits them. If they feel they're competing for ever scarcer resources, less so. We haven't built enough houses, schools, roads, railways, prisons, really anything to keep up with the huge increase in population. Because we can't afford it. It's the old 'look after your own before you look after others' writ large. Hence why people are incensed by the three billion a year hotel bill for asylum seekers.
Politically my views are a mad hodge-podge of autodidactic thought, I often describe myself as 'a libertarian who thought Marx had the right diagnosis but the wrong solution' although I'm no longer sure what the right answers are. I'm good at poking holes in things and pointing out the problems, less certain any more that I have any answers.
I'm tempted to agree with Ray Dallio that we are simply witnessing the end of an era in which one empire had total control (and from which we largely benefited as a satellite state of the US) into a world that looks multipolar, but will probably be dominated by one of the emerging economies within the next twenty or so years.
People under a certain age were already pretty liberal and open-minded by the late 1990s. I'm not sure how things have improved on that front since then, apart from some old people with more traditional views no longer being around.
My generation - approximately those in their 40s now - were the sweet summer children who came of age in the brief interregnum between the end of the cold war and the occurrence of 9/11.
We came of age in an era where western liberal democracy wasn't just dominant, it was unquestioned, as were all the orthodoxies that surrounded it.
We were winning, we had won, and we thought that we would go on winning forever. To us, the world seemed on an inexorable trajectory towards both greater social and economic freedoms, coupled with a peace dividend and rising (western) wealth through total economic victory.
9/11 knocked the stuffing out of the idea of a peaceful world, and 2008 knocked seven shades out of the idea of continually improving living standards.
The generation before us adopted those standards, cf Fukuyama's end of history and so on. But we were indoctrinated with them from an early age.
We are slowly discovering that many of those assumptions - both the economically and socially liberal strands of thought - that underpinned our world view are neither undisputed nor certain to win.
I now see myself as both an economic and social liberal, but also as a product of my time. The assumptions I grew up with I no longer take for granted. The world view I cherished I see slipping away.
It often feels as if our society is becoming less liberal, less tolerant, less open minded. Also poorer, angrier and more adversarial.
So, I'd agree with you. In some senses, if feels as if we are going backwards from the liberal and open-minded values that once seemed on a path to inevitable universal adoption.
But I grew up in what now looks like a cosseted, golden era. We were the children of the triumphalist crow of 'the end of history' and the peace dividend.
Those days feel very long ago now, but my core belief structure was undoubtedly shaped by the era I grew up in.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can issue a dual ultimatum: to Russia, agree to the terms or we let Ukraine off the leash, and to Ukraine, agree to the terms or we withdraw support.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Errr, I would suggest that:
(a) It is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded And (b) It is in our best interests that countries who go around invading other countries don't prosper
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Errr, I would suggest that:
(a) It is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded And (b) It is in our best interests that countries who go around invading other countries don't prosper
Is it morally right to place limits and conditions on that support? Was the Biden administration immoral?
I could have eaten the Arizona votes and shat a count by now. What are they doing there?
My latest best guess is that Lake will overtake Gallego in about two large dumps time. That's vote dumps, not poo dumps, if you're wondering. As there's about one large dump a day (fnar, fnar) it'll be sometime in the next two days. It'll be close.
You’d think the Dems were wiped out looking at the media .
The fact is there will be around 1% in the rust belt states between a Trump victory and a Harris win.
And yet we’re getting a constant drone of commentators catastrophizing over the Harris loss as if they were hammered into submission .
The answer is, newsworthy for what you lost to?
If Liverpool only lose one nil home to Man Utd, it’s not a heavy defeat, but to the Liverpool fans it will feel whole lot worse. TSE won’t be posting, oh well, only one nil.
Ditto Leon’s excited post early on election night, “Are the voters really going to do this!”
Losing to a platform of chaos, dementia and not a single workable policy is big, even if it’s only one nil.
I could have eaten the Arizona votes and shat a count by now. What are they doing there?
My latest best guess is that Lake will overtake Gallego in about two large dumps time. That's vote dumps, not poo dumps, if you're wondering. As there's about one large dump a day (fnar, fnar) it'll be sometime in the next two days. It'll be close.
Nobody's calling AZ for Trump yet! I have no idea why, no way Harris can win the EVs there!
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
But will Europe say nope?
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I hope we will.
There is broad cross party support (excluding Reform and the Greens) for Ukraine.
It's also worth remembering that done right, support involves British jobs making kit for the Ukrainians.
I really hope we will increase our support for Ukraine, but I don't trust Starmer, and ultimately it's up to him. He has chosen his language very carefully on support for Ukraine. Several times now he has committed to maintaining British support at the £3bn pa level that it is currently at. I do not see him deciding to double or triple that, or more, in the event that Trump walks away.
The German government is paralysed, and has resolutely refused to take a lead up to now. So France then? Or Italy?
And if Europe fails to make up the shortfall, what does Ukraine do?
I fear that, for want of spending £6bn for a couple of years, Britain could fail to provide the leadership that Europe would need to fill in for Trump walking away. And then Russia essentially succeeds in facing down Western support for Ukraine. Johnson said that, "Putin's act of aggression must fail and be seen to fail." Instead it would have been the West who would have failed and be seen to have failed to stand by a fellow democracy.
It's a situation that requires decisive action and a willingness to incur a short-term cost. It would be a very pleasant surprise to discover that Starmer possessed such a backbone. Unfortunately, I have to tell you now that no such backbone has been in evidence.
I could have eaten the Arizona votes and shat a count by now. What are they doing there?
My latest best guess is that Lake will overtake Gallego in about two large dumps time. That's vote dumps, not poo dumps, if you're wondering. As there's about one large dump a day (fnar, fnar) it'll be sometime in the next two days. It'll be close.
I think it is legal votes are still coming in? If they are in a van miles from the count, it’s impossible to count them?
Thinking back to recent elections, the last big dumps were from Dem places? Am I missing something if saying, Arizona may yet return a Dem Senator, but Nevada may not?
I could have eaten the Arizona votes and shat a count by now. What are they doing there?
My latest best guess is that Lake will overtake Gallego in about two large dumps time. That's vote dumps, not poo dumps, if you're wondering. As there's about one large dump a day (fnar, fnar) it'll be sometime in the next two days. It'll be close.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Errr, I would suggest that:
(a) It is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded And (b) It is in our best interests that countries who go around invading other countries don't prosper
Is it morally right to place limits and conditions on that support? Was the Biden administration immoral?
It's certainly more morally right than withdrawing support.
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about when the US Government went to war on the cartels.
(Ultimately, there is demand for drugs. There will therefore be a supply of drugs. If you want to stop drugs, stop demand for them.)
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Errr, I would suggest that:
(a) It is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded And (b) It is in our best interests that countries who go around invading other countries don't prosper
Well, Israel and Turkey (and frankly America) are currently occupying parts of other countries, and facing very little by way of meaningful sanction.
But leaving that aside, your points are bland sentiments that don't form the basis of a solid argument justifying the current British involvement in Ukraine in my opinion. Of course it is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded - but the nature and degree of that support is the debatable point. Of course it would be good if invaders suffered negative consequences - again, the degree to which we should inflict consequences upon ourselves to get revenge on those countries is highly debatable.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
It's far from certain, I would say, that Putin wants to make gains kn Ukraine purely as a springboard to attack the rest of Eastern Europe.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Yawn. Nothing will come out. It’s all grift and rumours of rumours.
As I have continually said.
Even if that turns out to be true, it’s notable that the likes of Schumer and Rubio are giving a very different impression. Why? It’s not because they’re morons. They’ve had +40 people testify under oath behind closed doors. Who? Why?
Why have they and many others pushed the UAP Disclosure Act now three years in a row, legally defining “technology of non human origin”?
It’s remarkable how few people on this forum see how notable that legislation is, even if you think the motives are different to what its sponsors portray.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
It's far from certain, I would say, that Putin wants to make gains kn Ukraine purely as a springboard to attack the rest of Eastern Europe.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Who cares? Russia recognised Ukraine's independence and its borders in 1991.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
I'm sorry but our current policy is what is ludicrous.
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about when the US Government went to war on the cartels.
(Ultimately, there is demand for drugs. There will therefore be a supply of drugs. If you want to stop drugs, stop demand for them.)
It should either be decriminalised or treated as liberals treat prostitution: the real offender is on the demand side not the supply side.
I could have eaten the Arizona votes and shat a count by now. What are they doing there?
My latest best guess is that Lake will overtake Gallego in about two large dumps time. That's vote dumps, not poo dumps, if you're wondering. As there's about one large dump a day (fnar, fnar) it'll be sometime in the next two days. It'll be close.
It’s very complicated. There’s mail in ballots that people dropped off on the day , ED vote and late arriving mail. And Maricopa county is huge and has quite distinct areas that favour the different parties . The batches tend to vary greatly in terms of party ID.
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about when the US Government went to war on the cartels.
(Ultimately, there is demand for drugs. There will therefore be a supply of drugs. If you want to stop drugs, stop demand for them.)
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
It's far from certain, I would say, that Putin wants to make gains kn Ukraine purely as a springboard to attack the rest of Eastern Europe.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Who cares? Russia recognised Ukraine's independence and its borders in 1991.
Well, it matters rather a lot, because if we accept the majority view on PB that Ukraine is only a stepping stone for Putin, then the current policy, or escalation of it, is really the only option.
But in fact, this is far from conclusively proven, and the stakes are extremely high.
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about when the US Government went to war on the cartels.
(Ultimately, there is demand for drugs. There will therefore be a supply of drugs. If you want to stop drugs, stop demand for them.)
It should either be decriminalised or treated as liberals treat prostitution: the real offender is on the demand side not the supply side.
Absolutely.
The number one rule of economics is: if there is demand, then there will be supply.
Western governments either need to legalize and regulate, or to actively criminalize and punish those who use of illegal drugs. The current situation - quasi-legal for users, seriously illegal for dealers - is utterly insane, and just results in billions of dollars flowing into criminal enterprises.
It's not that good. It just means we're spending more. I think it's probably a Trump demand, as he wants to get the US cash register ringing, and for that he needs big orders.
I want us to have more and better defence capabilities, but spending isn't getting. Laying out a plan for what ships, missiles, air defence, army etc. we need to be able to field is what should happen, and then spend wisely to get there. This spending could just mean everyone at the MOD gets a new iPad as the department races to spend its budget.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
I'm sorry but our current policy is what is ludicrous.
Agreed.
It's time to put boots on the ground and expel Russia from Ukraine. In the long term it is less risky to stand up to aggression.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
It's far from certain, I would say, that Putin wants to make gains kn Ukraine purely as a springboard to attack the rest of Eastern Europe.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Ireland plays a very specific historical role in the British imperial memory. Would that justify the parachute regiment swooping into Dublin?
As for the "culture war", I think we will reach a middle ground now, in the US and the UK.
Trans women aren't going to be allowed in female sports.
Permanent changes are not going to be allowed to anyone until they are over the age of 18.
Not sure what happened to putting pronouns on things but I certainly don't do it.
Is this a position from which we can move on?
Is that a middle ground Horse? I feel like I'm strongly gender critical (albeit I think the strongly gender critical view is the view of the majority) but I'd be broadly happy with that. I'd still be grumpy with thosewho claim to have invented a new gender, mind, but we need to draw a distinction between things we are grumpy about and things we want the state to ban.
Well you tell me?
Personally I think I've moved on this issue somewhat. I really am not sure that people should be making body-changing decisions until they are eighteen. But that's not really trans specific, I feel the same about plastic surgery and so on.
Professional sports are not something that impacts my life at all but I can see the problems people have with it. I still think it's quite a niche issue in the general sense of how many trans athletes there actually are. But I do think a firm policy is needed.
On inventing a new gender, I think people say lots of things. Personally I think this is niche of niche. People want to identify as men or women, in like 99.9% of cases. Let people call themselves whatever they want but I think the law already allows for that.
I think Trump's election will put this all to bed for most people and we can move on. In the same way despite what some people here say, I think SKS has put it to bed too but others can correct me if I am wrong.
That will depend in part on the FWS appeal to the Supreme Court, which will be heard later this month. SKS does not decide that but might be left with a political problem, given the promises he has made, depending on the outcome.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
It's far from certain, I would say, that Putin wants to make gains kn Ukraine purely as a springboard to attack the rest of Eastern Europe.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Who cares? Russia recognised Ukraine's independence and its borders in 1991.
Well, it matters rather a lot, because if we accept the majority view on PB that Ukraine is only a stepping stone for Putin, then the current policy, or escalation of it, is really the only option.
But in fact, this is far from conclusively proven, and the stakes are extremely high.
My point is Russia is clearly in the wrong (given its 1991 recognition of Ukraine) and shouldn't be rewarded for its aggression.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
I'm sorry but our current policy is what is ludicrous.
Agreed.
It's time to put boots on the ground and expel Russia from Ukraine. In the long term it is less risky to stand up to aggression.
The merit of a long term risk is that there's a long term to have it in.
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about when the US Government went to war on the cartels.
(Ultimately, there is demand for drugs. There will therefore be a supply of drugs. If you want to stop drugs, stop demand for them.)
I met a young American women in Seoul on this trip. She took me around a few bars - it was her job, I hasten to add - but booze did its thing and we ended up being confessional
She told me that she did fentanyl as a student in Seoul. It was, she said, the fashionable drug of the moment
1. She enjoyed it 2. You can get fentanyl in Korea??! 3. She said the come down was horrific so she never did it again
Yawn. Nothing will come out. It’s all grift and rumours of rumours.
As I have continually said.
Even if that turns out to be true, it’s notable that the likes of Schumer and Rubio are giving a very different impression. Why? It’s not because they’re morons. They’ve had +40 people testify under oath behind closed doors. Who? Why?
Why have they and many others pushed the UAP Disclosure Act now three years in a row, legally defining “technology of non human origin”?
It’s remarkable how few people on this forum see how notable that legislation is, even if you think the motives are different to what its sponsors portray.
Intelligent people can believe strange things all the time. From my perspective I find belief in deities weird, but I know many very intelligent people who do. It’s the same with UAPs etc. There are very many grifters and liars spinning yarns which suck people in. That’s all.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
In the age of the ICBM and cyber warfare it doesn't matter whether a threat is on your continent or not. That's why America is in NATO in the first place.
America has enough nukes to wipe out any nation that threatened it if it decided to shut up the drawbridge and isolate itself on its own continent.
As Europeans we can't keep expecting the US to fund most of our defence on our own continent, it is up to us to fund more of it ourselves to contain Putin
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
It's far from certain, I would say, that Putin wants to make gains kn Ukraine purely as a springboard to attack the rest of Eastern Europe.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Ireland plays a very specific historical role in the British imperial memory. Would that justify the parachute regiment swooping into Dublin?
No.
But would it mean thar Britain was also guaranteed to be using that as a springboard to attack the coast of northwestern, and Western France, too ?
My bus tour for the DMZ is full of Chinese. This is like getting a spooky bus trip past checkpoint Charlie in 1977 into Ost Berlin then discovering half the passengers are from Moscow
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Ludicrous. Ukraine is vital to the security and independence of central and eastern Europe. Why do you think Putin wants it so much? And we plainly haven't thrown the kitchen sink at Ukraine (well Russia), witness all the debate about defensive vs offensive weapons, tanks, fighter jets and long range missiles that can hit inside Russia. The war ending on Putin's terms with no security guarantees for Ukraine is not a particularly stable result. Russian revanchism remains and Ukraine doesn't seem to have many other options than going nuclear.
It's far from certain, I would say, that Putin wants to make gains kn Ukraine purely as a springboard to attack the rest of Eastern Europe.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Ireland plays a very specific historical role in the British imperial memory. Would that justify the parachute regiment swooping into Dublin?
Not the best example you could have used, given that we currently control part of the island of Ireland, having partitioned it because it contained more British-loyal subjects than republicans.
Boris at least took the lead and gave Ukraine the arms it needed before Putin's invasion while Biden and Macron and Scholz dithered.
Now Starmer is hiding behind Washington and Brussels, unwilling to do anything in terms of further military aid unless the Americans and/or EU sign off on it first.
You have to go back to Harold Wilson to find a PM as uninterested in British leadership abroad as Starmer is and even Wilson at least did his own thing in refusing to follow the US on Vietnam
Yawn. Nothing will come out. It’s all grift and rumours of rumours.
As I have continually said.
Even if that turns out to be true, it’s notable that the likes of Schumer and Rubio are giving a very different impression. Why? It’s not because they’re morons. They’ve had +40 people testify under oath behind closed doors. Who? Why?
Why have they and many others pushed the UAP Disclosure Act now three years in a row, legally defining “technology of non human origin”?
It’s remarkable how few people on this forum see how notable that legislation is, even if you think the motives are different to what its sponsors portray.
Intelligent people can believe strange things all the time. From my perspective I find belief in deities weird, but I know many very intelligent people who do. It’s the same with UAPs etc. There are very many grifters and liars spinning yarns which suck people in. That’s all.
For about two years you insisted Covid came from the wet market
I could have eaten the Arizona votes and shat a count by now. What are they doing there?
My latest best guess is that Lake will overtake Gallego in about two large dumps time. That's vote dumps, not poo dumps, if you're wondering. As there's about one large dump a day (fnar, fnar) it'll be sometime in the next two days. It'll be close.
What is your Arizona bet ?
£200 at 2/9 that Gallego will beat Lake. Of the four bets placed in November, 3 were won and the 4th is this one,
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about when the US Government went to war on the cartels.
(Ultimately, there is demand for drugs. There will therefore be a supply of drugs. If you want to stop drugs, stop demand for them.)
It should either be decriminalised or treated as liberals treat prostitution: the real offender is on the demand side not the supply side.
The Tom Clancy book is “Clear and Present Danger”
It was possibly one of his best. The politics and interactions are actual fairly subtle. And explained why a “gloves off” Drug War is a disaster waiting to happen.
The film made from it was standard “CIA infighting”. The director was explicit in interview that he wanted to make a film about Iran Contra ending the way he wanted it to. The result was as subtle as a brick and instantly forgotten.
Yawn. Nothing will come out. It’s all grift and rumours of rumours.
As I have continually said.
Even if that turns out to be true, it’s notable that the likes of Schumer and Rubio are giving a very different impression. Why? It’s not because they’re morons. They’ve had +40 people testify under oath behind closed doors. Who? Why?
Why have they and many others pushed the UAP Disclosure Act now three years in a row, legally defining “technology of non human origin”?
It’s remarkable how few people on this forum see how notable that legislation is, even if you think the motives are different to what its sponsors portray.
Intelligent people can believe strange things all the time. From my perspective I find belief in deities weird, but I know many very intelligent people who do. It’s the same with UAPs etc. There are very many grifters and liars spinning yarns which suck people in. That’s all.
That would require quite the conspiracy but it’s not impossible. Three aviators and the ship radar controller from just the Nimitz incident for example. How? Why? The Pentagon has formally confirmed that UAP are real. That it to say, real objects, not data artefacts, that display intelligent control, that are not American and are not known to be in the capability set of adversaries. There is of course potentially more than one interesting reason why they would say this. But it’s eternally fascinating to me how unfascinated most people on pb are about this.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I am 100% sure Trump can’t end it. He was BSing. If Ukraine and Europe say nope, we can’t agree to that proposal, there’s zilch Trump can do about it.
He can cut off the arms supply.
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
It is up to NATO members, particularly European members, to fund more aid to Ukraine.
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
Why would Europe do that? It is through the looking glass loony to complain about the USA backsliding on Ukraine - there is no such thing as the USA backsliding on Ukraine. We are only chucking the kitchen sink at Ukraine because the USA wishes it. If the USA decides someone else is public enemy number 1, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia (no sniggering at the back) then they will be public enemy number 1, to suggest otherwise will be treachery and beyond the pale, and Ukraine will become as vital a world cause as Nepal. PB morale warriors will sagely nod their heads and move on from Ukraine about as quickly as David Lammy moved on from the war on Trump.
Errr, I would suggest that:
(a) It is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded And (b) It is in our best interests that countries who go around invading other countries don't prosper
Well, Israel and Turkey (and frankly America) are currently occupying parts of other countries, and facing very little by way of meaningful sanction.
But leaving that aside, your points are bland sentiments that don't form the basis of a solid argument justifying the current British involvement in Ukraine in my opinion. Of course it is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded - but the nature and degree of that support is the debatable point. Of course it would be good if invaders suffered negative consequences - again, the degree to which we should inflict consequences upon ourselves to get revenge on those countries is highly debatable.
Your argument would be a lot more persuasive if you hadn't repeatedly chosen to believe and repeat Russian lies about the fate of MH17.
My bus tour for the DMZ is full of Chinese. This is like getting a spooky bus trip past checkpoint Charlie in 1977 into Ost Berlin then discovering half the passengers are from Moscow
Last time I did the river kwai it was full of gurning Japanese students with expensive cameras.
Yawn. Nothing will come out. It’s all grift and rumours of rumours.
As I have continually said.
Even if that turns out to be true, it’s notable that the likes of Schumer and Rubio are giving a very different impression. Why? It’s not because they’re morons. They’ve had +40 people testify under oath behind closed doors. Who? Why?
Why have they and many others pushed the UAP Disclosure Act now three years in a row, legally defining “technology of non human origin”?
It’s remarkable how few people on this forum see how notable that legislation is, even if you think the motives are different to what its sponsors portray.
Intelligent people can believe strange things all the time. From my perspective I find belief in deities weird, but I know many very intelligent people who do. It’s the same with UAPs etc. There are very many grifters and liars spinning yarns which suck people in. That’s all.
For about two years you insisted Covid came from the wet market
Oh fuck off. We do not know the origins of covid and the wet market is still a valid hypothesis. Where did SARS come from? Or MERS? Novel pathogens almost always originate in animals before making the transition to humans, usually through humans in close proximity. You haven’t won the debate over covid origins, even if you think you have. A lab leak is entirely plausible, but so is origins from the wet market.
Comments
Hell, when I was in Peru, I could have gone full drug lord - rented a palace. Didn’t.
We stayed in the family house - the areas not great, but the locals have their own police force and keep order. Empty bedrooms in the house - tons of space. And this was how a retired army drill instructor lived, there.
They could have spent 60% of their income on a fancier place - but that would be madness. Why would they want that?
Similarly, in France, people giggle at the idiots who mortgage themselves to the hilt to buy the local chateaux. Good luck keeping the roof on….
The whole attitude to property in this country has been distorted. For generations. By insane prices caused by an insane lack of supply.
What you would see is some effects as the ridiculous stuff unwinds
There is a huge demand for flats in London, because if all the 30 somethings living in shared accommodation - until they can just get a tiny one bed flat.
Of course coming out of the war years, and I still remember rationing, we were far more contented with much less and the family were at the heart of our lives, though we did belong to various local organisations, was PTA chair, and raised thousands for local charities
I will always remember we annually sponsored a coach of very poor and disadvantaged children to come to the seaside from Rochdale, and they had not seen the sea before and ran into it fully clothed
I would just say we had pressures, but they were very different to today and my wife and I really worry for the young especially
And whilst talking of my wife, as she stayed at home and looked after our children with only a small part time job in her fifties her state pension is just £5,250 pa
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1854922578856448279
I presume they will go to Turkey as that is where a lot of their wealth is. However, will anybody be very surprised if mysterious accidents start happening to them.
Nigel Farage tells me there need to be “concessions on both sides” on Ukraine
Does he mean territorial concessions on Ukrainian side? “I’m not playing your silly game”
Farage suggests Ukraine will have to be a part of NATO. But how much of Ukraine?
I’m a Scorpio, hence so self reliant and hungry for knowledge and answers. Looking at my horoscope, do you have tips for what I should do at the weekend? A bumper 11 races on ITV tomorrow, is the plan. If you say I will be lucky in love this week, I’ll go down the pub.
Oh sorry, it's alright to force Ukraine to give up territory for peace, but you won't do it yourself?
Consider: for much of November, the Sun lies in the actual, real constellation of Libra...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/08/jewish-maccabi-tel-aviv-fans-attacked-in-amsterdam/
Doesn't excuse the behaviour of the really nasty element of Maccabi (who have form), but seems like that wasn't the cause.
https://www.bizbuysell.com/Business-Asset/Infowars-30M-Revenue-E-Commerce-Opportunity/2289015/
The Germans are without a government that can decide to spend more for at least three months. Starmer really doesn't want to spend more. So will France and Italy support Poland, the Baltics and Nordics in the absence of the British and Germans?
It's so much easier to blame Trump for it.
I'd have put money on you as a Scorpio!
If he does, Ukraine are more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin. The only other country that could help are China, who are aligned with Russia.
Incidentally, Biden could have brought the Israeli attacks on Gaza to a shrieking halt by cutting arms to Israel - but if he had, then Israel would have been attacked again, possibly fatally, so he didn't.
There is broad cross party support (excluding Reform and the Greens) for Ukraine.
It's also worth remembering that done right, support involves British jobs making kit for the Ukrainians.
The whole war was predicated on Russian Irredentism. The first rule of Irredentism Club is that you demand everything your country ever touched.
Ukraine is heartland in the Russian Nationalist Mythology. The colour revolution was intolerable because it was a sign that Ukraine wanted to join Europe. That it was turning its back on Russian Culture.
For Ukraine to join NATO (The Main Enemy) and the EU would be a public, humiliating defeat for Putin. Even if he keeps the bit of Ukraine his troops are on, the rest is gone. Forever.
There is also the question what “ending the war” actually looks like. Weapons and violence falls silent?
Ukraine War is a huge problem for Donald Trump, now he’s measured against promising an easy fix. Take the matter of Russian money and assets being held - if he gives it back to Putin the aggressor it won’t go down well at all.
He can bullshit his way to election wins in his lifetime, but history will judge his record and legacy as trash. And that is completely the wrong way round from doing politics properly.
https://theskylive.com/sun-info
150kt - use an HEU core, no boosting.
Could be a great export product line.
I'm calling it for Trump if no one else will
US taxpayers can't be expected to continue to fund most of the NATO aid to Ukraine when it isn't even on their continent
But that's his problem, not ours. Ukraine is a trickier one. Only a psycho or a loon or an indoctrinated nitwit would actively want Putin's invasion to succeed, sure. But how far does our collective wish for it to fail go, especially when it inconveniences us or (shock horror) might require taxes to go up.
I fear we are about to find out.
I did wonder… and yes! Christmas present for the Malmesbury who thought he had everything.
A nuclear weapon plushie, to curl up in bed with.
Have you been taking geography lessons from HYUFD ?
The Sarge : “Get a nuclear weapon from the armoury, Private Pile. And DONT! FUCKING! DROP! IT!
The fact is there will be around 1% in the rust belt states between a Trump victory and a Harris win.
And yet we’re getting a constant drone of commentators catastrophizing over the Harris loss as if they were hammered into submission .
Harris 226 EVs
We came of age in an era where western liberal democracy wasn't just dominant, it was unquestioned, as were all the orthodoxies that surrounded it.
We were winning, we had won, and we thought that we would go on winning forever. To us, the world seemed on an inexorable trajectory towards both greater social and economic freedoms, coupled with a peace dividend and rising (western) wealth through total economic victory.
9/11 knocked the stuffing out of the idea of a peaceful world, and 2008 knocked seven shades out of the idea of continually improving living standards.
The generation before us adopted those standards, cf Fukuyama's end of history and so on. But we were indoctrinated with them from an early age.
We are slowly discovering that many of those assumptions - both the economically and socially liberal strands of thought - that underpinned our world view are neither undisputed nor certain to win.
I now see myself as both an economic and social liberal, but also as a product of my time. The assumptions I grew up with I no longer take for granted. The world view I cherished I see slipping away.
It often feels as if our society is becoming less liberal, less tolerant, less open minded. Also poorer, angrier and more adversarial.
So, I'd agree with you. In some senses, if feels as if we are going backwards from the liberal and open-minded values that once seemed on a path to inevitable universal adoption.
But I grew up in what now looks like a cosseted, golden era. We were the children of the triumphalist crow of 'the end of history' and the peace dividend.
Those days feel very long ago now, but my core belief structure was undoubtedly shaped by the era I grew up in.
Who is testifying will make the difference as to whether it's significant, but most of the media hasn't registered it at all, as yet.
unlike June 2023.
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1854386103962177631
(a) It is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded
And
(b) It is in our best interests that countries who go around invading other countries don't prosper
https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1854980821587050921
1. "Deploy all necessary military assets, including the US Navy to impose the full naval embargo and the cartels."
2. "Guarantee that the waters of the Western Hemisphere are not used to traffic illicit drugs to our country."
3. "Order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations."
4. "Designate the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations."
5: "Sever their access to global financial systems."
6. "Get the full cooperation of other governments to stop [the cartels], or we will expose every bribe, every kickback, every payoff, and every bit of corruption that is allowing the cartels to preserve their brutal reign."
7. "Ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the de*th penalty."
"When I'm back in the White House, the drug kingpins and vicious traffickers will never sleep soundly again."
My latest best guess is that Lake will overtake Gallego in about two large dumps time. That's vote dumps, not poo dumps, if you're wondering. As there's about one large dump a day (fnar, fnar) it'll be sometime in the next two days. It'll be close.
If Liverpool only lose one nil home to Man Utd, it’s not a heavy defeat, but to the Liverpool fans it will feel whole lot worse. TSE won’t be posting, oh well, only one nil.
Ditto Leon’s excited post early on election night, “Are the voters really going to do this!”
Losing to a platform of chaos, dementia and not a single workable policy is big, even if it’s only one nil.
As I have continually said.
The German government is paralysed, and has resolutely refused to take a lead up to now. So France then? Or Italy?
And if Europe fails to make up the shortfall, what does Ukraine do?
I fear that, for want of spending £6bn for a couple of years, Britain could fail to provide the leadership that Europe would need to fill in for Trump walking away. And then Russia essentially succeeds in facing down Western support for Ukraine. Johnson said that, "Putin's act of aggression must fail and be seen to fail." Instead it would have been the West who would have failed and be seen to have failed to stand by a fellow democracy.
It's a situation that requires decisive action and a willingness to incur a short-term cost. It would be a very pleasant surprise to discover that Starmer possessed such a backbone. Unfortunately, I have to tell you now that no such backbone has been in evidence.
Thinking back to recent elections, the last big dumps were from Dem places? Am I missing something if saying, Arizona may yet return a Dem Senator, but Nevada may not?
Bring back Boris
If the missiles start flying later, you can blame it on me for drunkenly abusing them
And yet they laugh at cricket matches for taking five days.
(Ultimately, there is demand for drugs. There will therefore be a supply of drugs. If you want to stop drugs, stop demand for them.)
But leaving that aside, your points are bland sentiments that don't form the basis of a solid argument justifying the current British involvement in Ukraine in my opinion. Of course it is morally right to support a democracy that has been invaded - but the nature and degree of that support is the debatable point. Of course it would be good if invaders suffered negative consequences - again, the degree to which we should inflict consequences upon ourselves to get revenge on those countries is highly debatable.
What also needs to be borne in mind is that Ukraine plays a very specific historical in the Russian imperial memory.
Why have they and many others pushed the UAP Disclosure Act now three years in a row, legally defining “technology of non human origin”?
It’s remarkable how few people on this forum see how notable that legislation is, even if you think the motives are different to what its sponsors portray.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1855008801738658268
Good.
But in fact, this is far from conclusively proven, and the stakes are extremely high.
The number one rule of economics is: if there is demand, then there will be supply.
Western governments either need to legalize and regulate, or to actively criminalize and punish those who use of illegal drugs. The current situation - quasi-legal for users, seriously illegal for dealers - is utterly insane, and just results in billions of dollars flowing into criminal enterprises.
I want us to have more and better defence capabilities, but spending isn't getting. Laying out a plan for what ships, missiles, air defence, army etc. we need to be able to field is what should happen, and then spend wisely to get there. This spending could just mean everyone at the MOD gets a new iPad as the department races to spend its budget.
It's time to put boots on the ground and expel Russia from Ukraine. In the long term it is less risky to stand up to aggression.
She told me that she did fentanyl as a student in Seoul. It was, she said, the fashionable drug of the moment
1. She enjoyed it
2. You can get fentanyl in Korea??!
3. She said the come down was horrific so she never did it again
As Europeans we can't keep expecting the US to fund most of our defence on our own continent, it is up to us to fund more of it ourselves to contain Putin
But would it mean thar Britain was also guaranteed to be using that as a springboard to attack the coast of northwestern, and Western France, too ?
Now Starmer is hiding behind Washington and Brussels, unwilling to do anything in terms of further military aid unless the Americans and/or EU sign off on it first.
You have to go back to Harold Wilson to find a PM as uninterested in British leadership abroad as Starmer is and even Wilson at least did his own thing in refusing to follow the US on Vietnam
It was possibly one of his best. The politics and interactions are actual fairly subtle. And explained why a “gloves off” Drug War is a disaster waiting to happen.
The film made from it was standard “CIA infighting”. The director was explicit in interview that he wanted to make a film about Iran Contra ending the way he wanted it to. The result was as subtle as a brick and instantly forgotten.
Will Hayward
@WillHayCardiff
I spent the day at the Reform conference in Wales today.
They say they will fix the Welsh NHS if you vote for them, but they fall apart in the details.
Here is a small part of my Lee Anderson Interview. Full interview with him and Nigel Farage in the newsletter this weekend.
https://x.com/WillHayCardiff/status/1854962728634663008
Where did SARS come from? Or MERS? Novel pathogens almost always originate in animals before making the transition to humans, usually through humans in close proximity.
You haven’t won the debate over covid origins, even if you think you have. A lab leak is entirely plausible, but so is origins from the wet market.