Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
I sincerely hope that we would be on the side of Europe and Canada, and not a Trump led USA.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
SKS will not criticize the US no matter what they do.
SKS will not criticize Israel no matter how Genocidal their actions.
SKS will not criticize right wing Labour figures no matter how serious their crimes.
SKS will suspend anyone within Labour no matter how just their cause.
SKS fans enjoy the glory before Labour right becomes so unpopular other from the same Politics stab SKS in the back/ front
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
SKS will not criticize the US no matter what they do.
SKS will not criticize Israel no matter how Genocidal their actions.
SKS will not criticize right wing Labour figures no matter how serious their crimes.
SKS will suspend anyone on the left within Labour no matter how just their cause.
SKS fans enjoy the glory before Labour right becomes so unpopular other from the same Politics stab SKS in the back/ front
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
The USA has fought Germany and France simultaneously in 1942, in Operation Torch.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
I sincerely hope that we would be on the side of Europe and Canada, and not a Trump led USA.
State Secession and US civil war is more likely than a straight Canadian invasion.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
SKS will not criticize the US no matter what they do.
SKS will not criticize Israel no matter how Genocidal their actions.
SKS will not criticize right wing Labour figures no matter how serious their crimes.
SKS will suspend anyone within Labour no matter how just their cause.
SKS fans enjoy the glory before Labour right becomes so unpopular other from the same Politics stab SKS in the back/ front
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
While tut-tutting ?
Well the man is a total narcissist. Give him attention and he'll keep coming back, ignore him and he 'll annoy someone else.
Then buy popcorn
I can quite imagine a 1930s Allanbrooke saying the very same thing, whilst polishing his SS epaulettes.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
I like this. I don't necessarily think we should be singling out lawyers - although as you say I would hope they would have a better handle on unintended consequences of bad legislation. But basically anyone who has had a proper career - whether it is a lawyer, a military man, a doctor, a plumber or a shop keeper. People who have lived and worked in the real world rather than solely in the realm of politics.
I was about to say that systems testers should be quite good at this. Or proper Engineers.
People who like to break things and then go and order -1 (or 4,294,967,296) pints in the bar afterwards.
By having more lawyers you just risk having more people with the same mindset.
“Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will favor fresh cuts to public spending over tax hikes if soaring UK borrowing costs wipe out her fiscal headroom.
Reeves plans to reaffirm her fiscal rules in a speech in the coming weeks aimed at reassuring investors and businesses about her handling of the economy“
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Presumably you're against the possible annexation of Northern Ireland? Should any moves from the Republic to promote a border poll be condemned?
In 2014, Californians overwhelmingly voted to spend billions on water storage and reservoirs.
Gavin Newsom still hasn’t built it.
Now no water is coming out of the fire hydrants..
Apparently yes.
Proposition #1 2014 Water Storage Investment Program. $7.5 billion bond issued to be used to build water storage. According to the LA Times it has still not been done.
Some, at last of the 'confusion' is caused, I suspect by the 'difficult' language used. I'm aware of a group of senior citizens who are extremely concerned about this and and consequently trying to make the language used in legislation less, perhaps, opaque. Their leaders thoughts can be understood perhaps, by part of his website introduction, viz: "How can things be improved? You may have heard about “Citizen Scientists” who are being recruited to help scientists analyse the huge amounts of information being gathered by recent advances in the technology employed. So, can “citizen legal advisers” be employed from the ranks of the U3A to help draft and propose improvements to legislation? While some knowledge of legal matters would be required in the team, there is a great need for some people to review legislation and comment along the lines of “I don’t understand this – it needs to be rewritten in a way that lay people can understand”.
Have a look at u3acommunities.org; improving legislation.
I thought U3A was just Tinder for wrinklies?
No, nothing like it. Meeting place, either 'for real' or on line for 'wrinklies' (I'll give you that) who want to keep their minds active.
I've been at a U3A meeting all afternoon, discussing Nietzsche.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Presumably you're against the possible annexation of Northern Ireland? Should any moves from the Republic to promote a border poll be condemned?
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Presumably you're against the possible annexation of Northern Ireland? Should any moves from the Republic to promote a border poll be condemned?
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
I like this. I don't necessarily think we should be singling out lawyers - although as you say I would hope they would have a better handle on unintended consequences of bad legislation. But basically anyone who has had a proper career - whether it is a lawyer, a military man, a doctor, a plumber or a shop keeper. People who have lived and worked in the real world rather than solely in the realm of politics.
We have Tulip Siddiq as City and anti-corruption Minister. Now imagine what I could do with such a role .....
Talking of which I see that FCA enforcement got its arse slapped today .....
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
The outbreak of TDS is gonna make Vivid seem like a sniffle. It's already destroying the PB left as I write....
The problem is he is potentially so bonkers it is hard to know what to respond to and what not to respond to. It's not like he is playing 4D chess, but nor is it necessarily all inconsequential.
In 2014, Californians overwhelmingly voted to spend billions on water storage and reservoirs.
Gavin Newsom still hasn’t built it.
Now no water is coming out of the fire hydrants..
Apparently yes.
Proposition #1 2014 Water Storage Investment Program. $7.5 billion bond issued to be used to build water storage. According to the LA Times it has still not been done.
Sounds like Newsom should run for Parliament here with that kind of record.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
Because it's a completely pointless gesture. And if all the countries did it, Afghanistan would win the tournament.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
While tut-tutting ?
That should stop the silly chap. It'll all be over by Christmas.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance. We did nothing when the US invaded Grenada in the 1980s for instance. NATO is a military alliance, but I think NATO treaties are silent on one member attacking another - this was raised when Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996. So if we intervened it would be by choice.
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing. Our weakened military and America's overwhelming power give us no choice.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
I like this. I don't necessarily think we should be singling out lawyers - although as you say I would hope they would have a better handle on unintended consequences of bad legislation. But basically anyone who has had a proper career - whether it is a lawyer, a military man, a doctor, a plumber or a shop keeper. People who have lived and worked in the real world rather than solely in the realm of politics.
We have Tulip Siddiq as City and anti-corruption Minister. Now imagine what I could do with such a role .....
Talking of which I see that FCA enforcement got its arse slapped today .....
From the reports, she should absolutely be the Housing Minister.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Foxy I'll yield to noone in my pessimism about a Trump presidency. I think this second one will be far worse than the first one.
But if we pay even the slightest attention to the crap that he says we are playing his game. He doesn't even need to invade Greenland (I doubt he has any intention of doing so) but it's already defining the narrative.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance. We did nothing when the US invaded Grenada in the 1980s for instance. NATO is a military alliance, but I think NATO treaties are silent on one member attacking another - this was raised when Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996. So if we intervened it would be by choice.
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
Remarkable isn’t it how US domestic opposition to Trump seems to have evaporated? It’s taken the Chancellor of Germany to tell him that annexing sovereign states isn’t the done thing. Very different from his first term.
I think post election there’s a loss of the will to resist. It’s like the prey when it’s been caught by the predator, it goes floppy and accepts its fate.
I assume that’s exactly how Russian oppositionists have gone, from the time of the Tzars through Stalin to Putin. After a while you just shut up and zone out.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
'Just ignore it' is not really feasible for international statesmen when the person saying it is a famously impulsive incoming US President.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
Because it's a completely pointless gesture. And if all the countries did it, Afghanistan would win the tournament.
Perhaps they should have two women doing the umpiring?
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance. We did nothing when the US invaded Grenada in the 1980s for instance. NATO is a military alliance, but I think NATO treaties are silent on one member attacking another - this was raised when Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996. So if we intervened it would be by choice.
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing. Our weakened military and America's overwhelming power give us no choice.
We do have the choice, though it would be expensive. Sanctions, including on individuals. For example on their European real estate investments or car and battery plants. They were also hugely expensive for the EU after Russia’s invasion but they were brought in because it was the right thing to do. Sanctions and an end to any cooperation with the US on other geopolitical matters.
It sounds ludicrous, but then an invasion of Greenland would be ludicrous and would call for an equally extreme response.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
There’s no ‘threatening’ going on.
I’ll change my mind when there’s an actual military threat to take over foreign territory, and not just someone mouthing off at a press conference.
We had four years of this already, and another four years of it thteatens to drive even more people crazy.
Look at what he does, not what he says. I’ll be first in line to criticise what he does if I disagree with it.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
SKS will not criticize the US no matter what they do.
SKS will not criticize Israel no matter how Genocidal their actions.
SKS will not criticize right wing Labour figures no matter how serious their crimes.
SKS will suspend anyone within Labour no matter how just their cause.
SKS fans enjoy the glory before Labour right becomes so unpopular other from the same Politics stab SKS in the back/ front
SKS is on the Labour right?
Of course he is a right factionalist and Zionist who hates the centre left
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
SKS will not criticize the US no matter what they do.
SKS will not criticize Israel no matter how Genocidal their actions.
SKS will not criticize right wing Labour figures no matter how serious their crimes.
SKS will suspend anyone within Labour no matter how just their cause.
SKS fans enjoy the glory before Labour right becomes so unpopular other from the same Politics stab SKS in the back/ front
SKS is on the Labour right?
Of course he is a right factionalist and Zionist who hates the centre left
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
There’s no ‘threatening’ going on.
I’ll change my mind when there’s an actual military threat to take over foreign territory, and not just someone mouthing off at a press conference.
We had four years of this already, and another four years of it thteatens to drive even more people crazy.
Look at what he does, not what he says. I’ll be first in line to criticise what he does if I disagree with it.
Not ruling out military option saying no, we might have to do something, is a threat.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
'Just ignore it' is not really feasible for international statesmen when the person saying it is a famously impulsive incoming US President.
We’ve had several cases of foreign leaders saying the quiet part out loud recently, and being conveniently ignored or explained away.
Putin and his propagandists when they say openly that Ukraine is a fake country that belongs in the Russian empire - yet apologists still insist it’s all about fear of NATO encirclement
Several of Netanyahu’s government, who have said frankly bloodcurdling things about Palestinians deserving to be wiped out (and several Arab spokespeople saying similar about Israel)
Both Orban and, particularly, Fico, making no secret of their Putinism yet still being given second chances by the EU and NATO
Now Trump is doing the same. I think it pays to take what he says seriously.
I think Rachel needs to be reminded that simply talking about growth doesn’t make it happen. This seems to be a delusion she’s managed to buy into since she entered government.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Presumably you're against the possible annexation of Northern Ireland? Should any moves from the Republic to promote a border poll be condemned?
Before Alanbrooke jumps in, famously the Republic's government considered sending Irish troops north in 1969 due to Catholic civil rights workers getting a hammering. I'm guessing you didn't know that.
Remarkable isn’t it how US domestic opposition to Trump seems to have evaporated? It’s taken the Chancellor of Germany to tell him that annexing sovereign states isn’t the done thing. Very different from his first term.
I think post election there’s a loss of the will to resist. It’s like the prey when it’s been caught by the predator, it goes floppy and accepts its fate.
I assume that’s exactly how Russian oppositionists have gone, from the time of the Tzars through Stalin to Putin. After a while you just shut up and zone out.
Last time most if not all the cabinet were what would now be considered RINOs (Bush/Reagan Republicans), generally believers in NATO and the West, and had lines they wouldn't cross for Trump.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
'Just ignore it' is not really feasible for international statesmen when the person saying it is a famously impulsive incoming US President.
We’ve had several cases of foreign leaders saying the quiet part out loud recently, and being conveniently ignored or explained away.
Putin and his propagandists when they say openly that Ukraine is a fake country that belongs in the Russian empire - yet apologists still insist it’s all about fear of NATO encirclement
Several of Netanyahu’s government, who have said frankly bloodcurdling things about Palestinians deserving to be wiped out (and several Arab spokespeople saying similar about Israel)
Both Orban and, particularly, Fico, making no secret of their Putinism yet still being given second chances by the EU and NATO
Now Trump is doing the same. I think it pays to take what he says seriously.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
'Just ignore it' is not really feasible for international statesmen when the person saying it is a famously impulsive incoming US President.
We’ve had several cases of foreign leaders saying the quiet part out loud recently, and being conveniently ignored or explained away.
Putin and his propagandists when they say openly that Ukraine is a fake country that belongs in the Russian empire - yet apologists still insist it’s all about fear of NATO encirclement
Several of Netanyahu’s government, who have said frankly bloodcurdling things about Palestinians deserving to be wiped out (and several Arab spokespeople saying similar about Israel)
Both Orban and, particularly, Fico, making no secret of their Putinism yet still being given second chances by the EU and NATO
Now Trump is doing the same. I think it pays to take what he says seriously.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
SKS will not criticize the US no matter what they do.
SKS will not criticize Israel no matter how Genocidal their actions.
SKS will not criticize right wing Labour figures no matter how serious their crimes.
SKS will suspend anyone within Labour no matter how just their cause.
SKS fans enjoy the glory before Labour right becomes so unpopular other from the same Politics stab SKS in the back/ front
SKS is on the Labour right?
Of course he is a right factionalist and Zionist who hates the centre left
I think Rachel needs to be reminded that simply talking about growth doesn’t make it happen. This seems to be a delusion she’s managed to buy into since she entered government.
It doesn’t, but words are important. I know tonight’s vibe is that we ignore anything politicians say and just watch what they do, but the greatest damage Reeves did to business confidence was not her NI changes but the months of doomsday mood music she ushered in with her July black hole speech.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
I'm not generally a big fan of sport boycotts - it can be hard to know where to draw the line. But here, cricket itself is directly affected - with other sports - by the Taliban actions. Refusing to play is not just a statement on wider issues in Afghanistan, it's showing solidarity with (women) cricketers from Afghanistan (I'm assuming here that the women's team, as was, would support a boycott - if not then I'd rethink and take advice from them on what the best action would be).
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
'Just ignore it' is not really feasible for international statesmen when the person saying it is a famously impulsive incoming US President.
We’ve had several cases of foreign leaders saying the quiet part out loud recently, and being conveniently ignored or explained away.
Putin and his propagandists when they say openly that Ukraine is a fake country that belongs in the Russian empire - yet apologists still insist it’s all about fear of NATO encirclement
Several of Netanyahu’s government, who have said frankly bloodcurdling things about Palestinians deserving to be wiped out (and several Arab spokespeople saying similar about Israel)
Both Orban and, particularly, Fico, making no secret of their Putinism yet still being given second chances by the EU and NATO
Now Trump is doing the same. I think it pays to take what he says seriously.
We should absolutely be taking Trump seriously. To give just one example, if Ukraine wasn't reason enough, we need to massively ramp up military spending in UK and persuade European and non-European allies to do the same. If Trump acts rather than just talks, we need to be a little less unprepared than we currently are to meet the threat.
But he's a narcissistic playground bully. We should be 100% studiously ignore his pronouncements in public. Responding to them does his work for him.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
While tut-tutting ?
That should stop the silly chap. It'll all be over by Christmas.
But not poo pooing. Obviously.
Well, when you start with the poo-pooing, where does it all end? You poo-poo the poo-poo, which then gets poo-poo'd, and it all goes wrong. And why? Because poo-poo!
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Is lol-ing and hoping it goes away the best approach to dealing with Putins expansion as well, or just Trumps?
It’s 100x more important to look at what they do, rather than what they say.
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
If the US want to bribe Greenlanders to join that is fine, but if they want to take it militarily of course other countries should stand up and clearly say no, just as we have to with Russia and Ukraine. That people are criticising NATO leaders for simply standing up for another part of NATO that is being threatened shows how bonkers politics has become.
There’s no ‘threatening’ going on.
I’ll change my mind when there’s an actual military threat to take over foreign territory, and not just someone mouthing off at a press conference.
We had four years of this already, and another four years of it thteatens to drive even more people crazy.
Look at what he does, not what he says. I’ll be first in line to criticise what he does if I disagree with it.
That's the kind of attitude that nearly did for Ukraine.
We should be forever grateful that some people did actually take the rhetoric seriously and got some weapons to Kyiv. Otherwise it would have been too late.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
I'm not generally a big fan of sport boycotts - it can be hard to know where to draw the line. But here, cricket itself is directly affected - with other sports - by the Taliban actions. Refusing to play is not just a statement on wider issues in Afghanistan, it's showing solidarity with (women) cricketers from Afghanistan (I'm assuming here that the women's team, as was, would support a boycott - if not then I'd rethink and take advice from them on what the best action would be).
Still think that England should put Sophie Eccleston into their squad. That would solve the problem.
I think Rachel needs to be reminded that simply talking about growth doesn’t make it happen. This seems to be a delusion she’s managed to buy into since she entered government.
To try and be fair and bipartisan -
There are, from the extreme right to the extreme left, a number of policies that have been used to attempt to create growth. In many counties round the world.
Oceans of ink and not a little blood has been spilt on the subject.
The recent budget contained none of these. Indeed, some of the measures are those that might reduce growth.
Therefore, for the budget to increase growth would be surprising.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
While tut-tutting ?
That should stop the silly chap. It'll all be over by Christmas.
But not poo pooing. Obviously.
Well, when you start with the poo-pooing, where does it all end? You poo-poo the poo-poo, which then gets poo-poo'd, and it all goes wrong. And why? Because poo-poo!
That’s how you get whole regiments disbanded. Morale destroyed, d’you see?
Have we noted that the King of Denmark has updated his Royal Coat of Arms to include the symbols Greenland and the Faroe Islands more prominently.
(Bring your own Hamlet puns.)
The Danish king has shocked some historians by changing the royal coat of arms to more prominently feature Greenland and the Faroe Islands – in what has also been seen as a rebuke to Donald Trump.
Less than a year since succeeding his mother, Queen Margrethe, after she stood down on New Year’s Eve 2023, King Frederik has made a clear statement of intent to keep the autonomous Danish territory and former colony within the kingdom of Denmark.
For 500 years, previous Danish royal coats of arms have featured three crowns, the symbol of the Kalmar Union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which was led from Denmark between 1397 and 1523. They are also an important symbol of its neighbour Sweden.
Have we noted that the King of Denmark has updated his Royal Coat of Arms to include the symbols Greenland and the Faroe Islands more prominently.
(Bring your own Hamlet puns.)
The Danish king has shocked some historians by changing the royal coat of arms to more prominently feature Greenland and the Faroe Islands – in what has also been seen as a rebuke to Donald Trump.
Less than a year since succeeding his mother, Queen Margrethe, after she stood down on New Year’s Eve 2023, King Frederik has made a clear statement of intent to keep the autonomous Danish territory and former colony within the kingdom of Denmark.
For 500 years, previous Danish royal coats of arms have featured three crowns, the symbol of the Kalmar Union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which was led from Denmark between 1397 and 1523. They are also an important symbol of its neighbour Sweden.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
I can't speak for everyone. For me personally, quite a lot. Definitely a 10% increase, though with the usual Dura-Ace caveats that I'd prefer it wasn't spent on eg mechanical kittens because one of our friendly defence contractors have insisted it is the next big thing and have given one to the minister as an avant garde pet.
Graphic illustration of the scale of the LA Palisades fire but bizarre placement of the overlay on the London map - if the editor had moved it 2 miles to the west it would have wiped out Westminster and the City.
Some of the pre-election players (YouGov, R+W) haven't popped their little noses out of their burrows since the election. Whether that's because they are still applying sticky tape to their models, or the papers (mostly) aren't paying for VI any more, you would have to ask them.
Incidentally, looking at that summary, some of the older players (Opinium, Deltapoll, Survation) seem to be less bad for Labour than the newbies. Which isn't to say that they're right...
Look at the by-election results.
My guess is that the pollsters are tweaking their methodologies, but still aren't getting close to real results in actual polls. So they have gone away to stroke their beards and ponder some more.
Graphic illustration of the scale of the LA Palisade fire but bizarre placement of the overlay on the London map - if the editor had moved it 2 miles to the west it would have wiped out Westminster and the City.
Less than a year since succeeding his mother, Queen Margrethe, after she stood down on New Year’s Eve 2023, King Frederik has made a clear statement of intent to keep the autonomous Danish territory and former colony within the kingdom of Denmark.
Queen Margrethe stood down on 14th January 2024, the 50th anniversary of her accession.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
I can't speak for everyone. For me personally, quite a lot. Definitely a 10% increase, though with the usual Dura-Ace caveats that I'd prefer it wasn't spent on eg mechanical kittens because one of our friendly defence contractors have insisted it is the next big thing and have given one to the minister as an avant garde pet.
Agreed. If we need to protect ourselves from evil aggressors, whether Putin or Trump, we need to pay whatever it costs.
Graphic illustration of the scale of the LA Palisade fire but bizarre placement of the overlay on the London map - if the editor had moved it 2 miles to the west it would have wiped out Westminster and the City.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
I can't speak for everyone. For me personally, quite a lot. Definitely a 10% increase, though with the usual Dura-Ace caveats that I'd prefer it wasn't spent on eg mechanical kittens because one of our friendly defence contractors have insisted it is the next big thing and have given one to the minister as an avant garde pet.
Better pay, career structure and recruitment structure would pay dividends.
Also training. Over the years, for example various armies (especially the Americans) spent vast sums on exotic tech to try and increase the hit rate with small arms. Most of these programs failed. But one thing was noticed - the additional practise the units doing testing got achieved most of the goals of the programs.
Yes, if you teach the soldiers how to shoot, and give them practise, then they are better at shooting.
"Musk will spend millions to turn Europe into a populist paradise", Steve Bannon tells Bloomberg. Great.
I think that's an interesting question.
Musk is assaulting politicians across a number of European countries - UK, France, and others; if it's as complete a collection of unthinking nonsense as it appears, then he could get his businesses regulated more firmly across Europe.
It's quite ironic that this is Bannon, who was put in prison for Contempt of Congress because he refused to testify wrt the January 6 insurrection.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. Nobody ever wants to pay more tax for anything. Though why does the discussion in cases like this almost invariably turn to the taxation of earned incomes? Why not rents, capital gains and property?
Some of the pre-election players (YouGov, R+W) haven't popped their little noses out of their burrows since the election. Whether that's because they are still applying sticky tape to their models, or the papers (mostly) aren't paying for VI any more, you would have to ask them.
Incidentally, looking at that summary, some of the older players (Opinium, Deltapoll, Survation) seem to be less bad for Labour than the newbies. Which isn't to say that they're right...
Look at the by-election results.
My guess is that the pollsters are tweaking their methodologies, but still aren't getting close to real results in actual polls. So they have gone away to stroke their beards and ponder some more.
The pollsters haven’t a clue, but daren’t admit it to their paymasters, who, in turn, don’t think that polling is currently worth the money, so no polls are being requested or offered.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
I can't speak for everyone. For me personally, quite a lot. Definitely a 10% increase, though with the usual Dura-Ace caveats that I'd prefer it wasn't spent on eg mechanical kittens because one of our friendly defence contractors have insisted it is the next big thing and have given one to the minister as an avant garde pet.
10% taking the rate to 22%/44%/49.5% or 10pp taking the rate to 30%/50%/60%
A 1pp increase would presumably make quite a dent, although I don't have the figures to hand.
Also, not happening. Unless possibly as a cover for funds to spend on other stuff.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. Nobody ever wants to pay more tax for anything. Though why does the discussion in cases like this almost invariably turn to the taxation of earned incomes? Why not rents, capital gains and property?
Wrong. I'd be happy to pay more tax provided it was applied fairly and progressively on those, like me, who can afford it and used to improve public services, including defence. I am pretty sure I am not alone.
I agree with you about the need to look at taxing areas other than earned income though.
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
So, how much will Trump's antics actually bugger the world economy?
And will the world's billionaires thank him for it?
It's the central mystery of every dodgy cabal.
The people involved are fundamentally untrustworthy- or they wouldn't get into the dodgy cabal in the first place.
But at some point, they will rat on each other- because are fundamentally untrustworthy and because they wanted different things from the cabal. (We saw a bit of that in the rise and fall of BoJo.)
The only questions are when does it fall apart, and who (if anyone) is left standing at the end.
Graphic illustration of the scale of the LA Palisades fire but bizarre placement of the overlay on the London map - if the editor had moved it 2 miles to the west it would have wiped out Westminster and the City.
Graphic illustration of the scale of the LA Palisade fire but bizarre placement of the overlay on the London map - if the editor had moved it 2 miles to the west it would have wiped out Westminster and the City.
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Yes, I think it's essentially a polemic against the Karen slur. I've not read it, only read the reviews.
The problem with polemics against the Karen slur, is that the Karen type exists and has been shown on video recording on multiple occasions.
The following is photographic evidence of a Karen in the wild
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Yes, I think it's essentially a polemic against the Karen slur. I've not read it, only read the reviews.
The problem with polemics against the Karen slur, is that the Karen type exists and has been shown on video recording on multiple occasions.
The following is photographic evidence of a Karen in the wild
Remarkable isn’t it how US domestic opposition to Trump seems to have evaporated? It’s taken the Chancellor of Germany to tell him that annexing sovereign states isn’t the done thing. Very different from his first term.
I think post election there’s a loss of the will to resist. It’s like the prey when it’s been caught by the predator, it goes floppy and accepts its fate.
I assume that’s exactly how Russian oppositionists have gone, from the time of the Tzars through Stalin to Putin. After a while you just shut up and zone out.
Much will depend on how his tariffs impact the US economy and what the polling looks like over the next year or 2 leading to the midterms in 2026. If the GOP suffer only moderate losses or even make gains then he will be OK but if the Democrats retake Congress by a landslide impeachment for Trump will surely be on the table
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
I think Rachel needs to be reminded that simply talking about growth doesn’t make it happen. This seems to be a delusion she’s managed to buy into since she entered government.
But standing up in Parliament, saying "Growth!", then sitting down again to somewhat hesitant applause worked out ok for Liz. Didn't it?
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
Is there some way a freak event could be engineered to wipe out the Trumpster, the weirdo, the Squeaker, the old guy and therefore make Rubio acting president?
I mean, I don't like the guy or his politics but at least he's sane.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
I thought they were skint too?
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance. We did nothing when the US invaded Grenada in the 1980s for instance. NATO is a military alliance, but I think NATO treaties are silent on one member attacking another - this was raised when Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996. So if we intervened it would be by choice.
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing. Our weakened military and America's overwhelming power give us no choice.
The US intervened in Grenada in the 1980s only to stop a Marxist coup and even then Reagan got some strong words from Thatcher. A US invasion of Canada would be a different scenario. I would suspect France would also intervene given Quebec and as I also said in the highly unlikely event Trump followed through with all his threats he could also be facing a war with Mexico on his southern flank
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
Is there some way a freak event could be engineered to wipe out the Trumpster, the weirdo, the Squeaker, the old guy and therefore make Rubio acting president?
I mean, I don't like the guy or his politics but at least he's sane.
I know a chap called Leon who knows some guys with a lab and some bats out East…
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
I'm not generally a big fan of sport boycotts - it can be hard to know where to draw the line. But here, cricket itself is directly affected - with other sports - by the Taliban actions. Refusing to play is not just a statement on wider issues in Afghanistan, it's showing solidarity with (women) cricketers from Afghanistan (I'm assuming here that the women's team, as was, would support a boycott - if not then I'd rethink and take advice from them on what the best action would be).
In bilateral competition, I'd agree with you. But in ICC tournaments, based on the Zimbabwe precedent, it could only be counter-productive.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
The USA has fought Germany and France simultaneously in 1942, in Operation Torch.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. Nobody ever wants to pay more tax for anything. Though why does the discussion in cases like this almost invariably turn to the taxation of earned incomes? Why not rents, capital gains and property?
Wrong. I'd be happy to pay more tax provided it was applied fairly and progressively on those, like me, who can afford it and used to improve public services, including defence. I am pretty sure I am not alone.
I agree with you about the need to look at taxing areas other than earned income though.
Fair enough, and my previous remarks were the product of cynicism. I shall rephrase: the large majority of people don't want to pay more tax, for various reasons: they can't afford to; they think they already pay too much; they think they shouldn't be asked to pay anything at all; they think other people are a fairer target for heavier taxation; they assume that the money will be spent on items and people of which they disapprove or will otherwise be wasted; or some combination of various of these reasons.
Beyond that, the sums required are colossal and a lot of people are going to have to be made to really hurt if the public finances are to be stabilised and public services made to function properly, given that the population is increasingly fat, old and altogether clapped out. I can only assume that the Government is so frightened that what needs to be done will be so unpopular that it will be wiped out at the next election, and that it has therefore decided that tinkering at the edges, and hoping it looks less bad than the alternative, is the best that it can manage.
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
I assume he means a smolt not a “smelt”.
Which is a teenaged salmon or trout.
Without them you don’t have any wild salmon
I'd value a smelt (or indeed a smolt) at a million Donald Trumps.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
I thought they were skint too?
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
A big unpopulated island in the Atlantic with decent mineral wealth maybe?
I think Rachel needs to be reminded that simply talking about growth doesn’t make it happen. This seems to be a delusion she’s managed to buy into since she entered government.
It doesn’t, but words are important. I know tonight’s vibe is that we ignore anything politicians say and just watch what they do, but the greatest damage Reeves did to business confidence was not her NI changes but the months of doomsday mood music she ushered in with her July black hole speech.
Those months of doom-mongering simply show how inept Reeves is. Starmer would do more to reassure the markets by sacking her than anything Reeves is likely to say.
In 2014, Californians overwhelmingly voted to spend billions on water storage and reservoirs.
Gavin Newsom still hasn’t built it.
Now no water is coming out of the fire hydrants..
It’s not true. There were a couple of localised instances when isolated engines ran out of water and the media played the story (over and over again)
The other one was the complaint from a homeowner that he’d asked for help form an engine that drove off and left his burning house. He followed them round the corner and found they were evacuating an old people’s apartment block. But spent the entire interview complaining - without being challenged by the journalists - that he paid his taxes and didn’t expect to be abandoned when he needed the fire service
Comments
Once he acts it is too late.
SKS will not criticize Israel no matter how Genocidal their actions.
SKS will not criticize right wing Labour figures no matter how serious their crimes.
SKS will suspend anyone within Labour no matter how just their cause.
SKS fans enjoy the glory before Labour right becomes so unpopular other from the same Politics stab SKS in the back/ front
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1877022460752674874
In 2014, Californians overwhelmingly voted to spend billions on water storage and reservoirs.
Gavin Newsom still hasn’t built it.
Now no water is coming out of the fire hydrants..
Do we still have the tank range out in Canada?
People who like to break things and then go and order -1 (or 4,294,967,296) pints in the bar afterwards.
By having more lawyers you just risk having more people with the same mindset.
Reeves plans to reaffirm her fiscal rules in a speech in the coming weeks aimed at reassuring investors and businesses about her handling of the economy“
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/investing/2025/01/08/reeves-eyes-more-spending-cuts-if-uk-bond-rout-eats-up-headroom/
Anyone reassured?
Spending every minute microanalysing what they say isn’t going to get us anywhere.
Proposition #1 2014 Water Storage Investment Program. $7.5 billion bond issued to be used to build water storage. According to the LA Times it has still not been done.
This is from 2021
https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-and-nature-california-droughts-science--74bbbd535f6519b8aa79d57737e6eef4
There were additional propositoins passsd in 2018 to do the same thing - Prop 3 and Prop 68 but those don't seem to have been acted upon either.
How much this is the fault of Newsom and his predecessors I have no idea. I don't know if it is his responsibility or not.
https://x.com/Britain_People/status/1876587729330610357/photo/1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon
Talking of which I see that FCA enforcement got its arse slapped today .....
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing. Our weakened military and America's overwhelming power give us no choice.
But if we pay even the slightest attention to the crap that he says we are playing his game. He doesn't even need to invade Greenland (I doubt he has any intention of doing so) but it's already defining the narrative.
I think post election there’s a loss of the will to resist. It’s like the prey when it’s been caught by the predator, it goes floppy and accepts its fate.
I assume that’s exactly how Russian oppositionists have gone, from the time of the Tzars through Stalin to Putin. After a while you just shut up and zone out.
They wouldn't be able to show it on Afghan TV.
It sounds ludicrous, but then an invasion of Greenland would be ludicrous and would call for an equally extreme response.
I’ll change my mind when there’s an actual military threat to take over foreign territory, and not just someone mouthing off at a press conference.
We had four years of this already, and another four years of it thteatens to drive even more people crazy.
Look at what he does, not what he says. I’ll be first in line to criticise what he does if I disagree with it.
Explain…
She will commit to growth.
We shall see. It’s been a poor start so far.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1877048982225990040?s=61
Putin and his propagandists when they say openly that Ukraine is a fake country that belongs in the Russian empire - yet apologists still insist it’s all about fear of NATO encirclement
Several of Netanyahu’s government, who have said frankly bloodcurdling things about Palestinians deserving to be wiped out (and several Arab spokespeople saying similar about Israel)
Both Orban and, particularly, Fico, making no secret of their Putinism yet still being given second chances by the EU and NATO
Now Trump is doing the same. I think it pays to take what he says seriously.
Those safeguards don't exist this time.
BJO doesn't seem to agree
If someone days "don't panic" people panic! 😂
But he's a narcissistic playground bully. We should be 100% studiously ignore his pronouncements in public. Responding to them does his work for him.
We should be forever grateful that some people did actually take the rhetoric seriously and got some weapons to Kyiv. Otherwise it would have been too late.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-officials-fretted-about-likely-effects-of-trump-trade-and-immigration-policies-200525705.html
There are, from the extreme right to the extreme left, a number of policies that have been used to attempt to create growth. In many counties round the world.
Oceans of ink and not a little blood has been spilt on the subject.
The recent budget contained none of these. Indeed, some of the measures are those that might reduce growth.
Therefore, for the budget to increase growth would be surprising.
Great.
(Bring your own Hamlet puns.)
The Danish king has shocked some historians by changing the royal coat of arms to more prominently feature Greenland and the Faroe Islands – in what has also been seen as a rebuke to Donald Trump.
Less than a year since succeeding his mother, Queen Margrethe, after she stood down on New Year’s Eve 2023, King Frederik has made a clear statement of intent to keep the autonomous Danish territory and former colony within the kingdom of Denmark.
For 500 years, previous Danish royal coats of arms have featured three crowns, the symbol of the Kalmar Union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which was led from Denmark between 1397 and 1523. They are also an important symbol of its neighbour Sweden.
But in the updated version, the crowns have been removed and replaced with a more prominent polar bear and ram than previously, to symbolise Greenland and the Faroe Islands respectively.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/06/danish-king-changes-coat-of-arms-in-apparent-rebuke-to-donald-trump
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg525q2ggl4o
My guess is that the pollsters are tweaking their methodologies, but still aren't getting close to real results in actual polls. So they have gone away to stroke their beards and ponder some more.
"OMG!!! Look how close to oblivion!!!"
Also training. Over the years, for example various armies (especially the Americans) spent vast sums on exotic tech to try and increase the hit rate with small arms. Most of these programs failed. But one thing was noticed - the additional practise the units doing testing got achieved most of the goals of the programs.
Yes, if you teach the soldiers how to shoot, and give them practise, then they are better at shooting.
Musk is assaulting politicians across a number of European countries - UK, France, and others; if it's as complete a collection of unthinking nonsense as it appears, then he could get his businesses regulated more firmly across Europe.
It's quite ironic that this is Bannon, who was put in prison for Contempt of Congress because he refused to testify wrt the January 6 insurrection.
And will the world's billionaires thank him for it?
A 1pp increase would presumably make quite a dent, although I don't have the figures to hand.
Also, not happening. Unless possibly as a cover for funds to spend on other stuff.
I agree with you about the need to look at taxing areas other than earned income though.
Which is a teenaged salmon or trout.
Without them you don’t have any wild salmon
The people involved are fundamentally untrustworthy- or they wouldn't get into the dodgy cabal in the first place.
But at some point, they will rat on each other- because are fundamentally untrustworthy and because they wanted different things from the cabal. (We saw a bit of that in the rise and fall of BoJo.)
The only questions are when does it fall apart, and who (if anyone) is left standing at the end.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_smelt
I mean, I don't like the guy or his politics but at least he's sane.
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
Beyond that, the sums required are colossal and a lot of people are going to have to be made to really hurt if the public finances are to be stabilised and public services made to function properly, given that the population is increasingly fat, old and altogether clapped out. I can only assume that the Government is so frightened that what needs to be done will be so unpopular that it will be wiped out at the next election, and that it has therefore decided that tinkering at the edges, and hoping it looks less bad than the alternative, is the best that it can manage.
The other one was the complaint from a homeowner that he’d asked for help form an engine that drove off and left his burning house. He followed them round the corner and found they were evacuating an old people’s apartment block. But spent the entire interview complaining - without being challenged by the journalists - that he paid his taxes and didn’t expect to be abandoned when he needed the fire service