Categories
What’s this polling going to look like by the end of Trump’s second term? – politicalbetting.com
What’s this polling going to look like by the end of Trump’s second term? – politicalbetting.com
More Britons would rather have the EU than the US as Britain's closest trading partnerThe EU: 53% (+2 from 2 Mar 2020)The US: 21% (+4)Neither: 7% (-3)https://t.co/mCGCqH1KtU pic.twitter.com/MwkYgoTiIV
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A few reasons why I think China will have a go:
1) Trump dislikes China but this may not mean he'll want Americans to die, preferring an economic to military approach.
2) China's demographically screwed. It's on a plateau and will soon decline at an increasing rate, decreasing its strength relative to America over the next century. Striking now is from the peak of its power.
3) Xi Jinping won't be around forever. If he wants to have a go he needs to do it sooner rather than later.
4) European rearmament hasn't exactly kicked in the afterburners but that *might* happen (in countries beyond Poland, which does seem to be increasing Defence capabilities significantly) in the medium term. I suspect it won't, but why delay and take that risk?
5) Ukraine versus Russia is ongoing, which is a useful distraction for China.
EU 'could consider' UK joining pan-Europe customs scheme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5g48yx0dvo
https://youtu.be/yuOHbyuanbY?feature=shared
I guess that class are all MAGA voters wishing they had paid more attention.
It would be entirely inconsistent with us being a sovereign, democratic country, and so I doubt it would last, even if it got past a referendum.
“The Department of Homeland Security has terminated all members of advisory committees, including one that has been investigating a major Chinese hack of large US telecom firms.
“"The Cyber Safety Review Board—a Department of Homeland Security investigatory body stood up under a Biden-era cybersecurity executive order to probe major cybersecurity incidents—has been cleared of non-government members as part of a DHS-wide push to cut costs under the Trump administration, according to three people familiar with the matter," NextGov/FCW reported yesterday.”
This is Trump being “tough” on China.
Ed Davey's decent, intelligent moderation is finally getting the attention it deserves. His piece in the Guardian yesterday is a thoughtful dissection of the threat of Musk and the other tech cronies.
The mood music across Europe concerning the new Trump order is strongly negative, and the bombastic, tawdry style of the new administration unlikely to improve Trump's already low popularity here.
Trump scepticism has a solid franchise with the voters- Sir Ed could well gain massively by expressing this.
"The BBC understands that the UK government has begun consultations with business over the benefits of the PEM plan that could help cut red tape and improve trade. No final decision has been made yet."
People dont really want growth anyway, heck, degrowth is even openly an idea promoted now by some.
https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/22/trump-administrations-cancels-scientific-meetings-abruptly/
Our market is caught between the mega market dominant players of the US, EU and China. Just as Canada doesn't get to dictate to America what the rules are in their market, the same is true with us and Europe. And with respect to it, those still arguing that actually we can actually must *know* that what they are saying is demonstrably wrong.
For me, there's a more earthy reason. China have spent a couple of decades massively expanding and upgrading their military's capabilities. They have lots of shiny new toys, and people - even military brass - love playing with their toys.
But the toys wear out and become outdated. I reckon we're near peak Chinese military: they'll find it hard to keep on giving the military the funding they have been giving as the Chinese economic miracle slows. If they don't use their toys in the next decade, they'll start to lose them.
Also, the way the military has been behaving in the South China Seas is instructive. At best, bullying. At worst, asking for a fight.
Many in the Chinese military will want a war. The question is, if Xi does not, can he resist them?
Though this isn’t strictly Brexit, it’s our future economic relationship with the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3l9jdy2q1o
I think people want growth as long as it does not inconvenience them although I agree, there are people who do not.
The EU has even funded some research into degrowth. These fringe ideas become mainstream over time. This one probably will too.
We will get what we are given and like it.
So the comparison is a bit ridiculous.
Also the single market only really covers manufactured goods and agriculture - services aren't well covered, so even that greatly overstates the importance of EU trade to us, despite the political fixation on it.
At least tomorrow Trump will probably be displaced by catastrophic reports from Storm Eowyn.
I think part of what turns people to populism is sense that mainstream politicians can't get anything done. Starmer gets this.
The persistence of the Reform flat-earthers as a distinct law-unto-themselves group is a consistent feature.
I think that one factor we can't call yet is the resilience and persistence of the Reform UK Ltd deludo-bubble. They seem ime at grass roots level to be fairly persistent in their embrace of the BS, even when it involves embracing the economics of 1+1=27 or ludicrous-on-their-face conspiracy theories whether from Youtubers or GB News.
A strange one I saw on GBN late last week - manufactured I think by Martin Daubney - was that the tidying up of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission powers across different types of cemeteries in proposals from the Law Commission is a full-on plot by the "Government" (of which the CWGC is not a part !) to "dig up the bones of our war heroes". *
A lot of them really seem to be so far down the rabbit hole as to be unreachable.
* It was classic GBN / Telegraph Podcast playbook - the presenter frames something in a way entirely inconsistent with the report he has just referenced, and then two (Rightie + eccentric Leftie) debate the false version just created, not the actual issue. And a fair number of listeners seem to snuffle up the BS.
They are not as talentless as they appear, or rather the public is not as talentful as we think and our leaders reflect that. Our cultural, societal, and therefore political norms incentivise short term and small scale actions on major problems or the denial of problems, and we're a lot poorer than we think we are or deserve and what politician would rise high by saying so.
At least Rachel Reeves now seems to get the need you actually have to do something to get growth rather than just speak about it. However there are too many like Ed Miliband in the govt who will stymie growth.
I shall work from home I think.
In any event the best way to get any kind of deal with a grifter like Trump is to be fully prepared to walk away.
In any case if Russia can annex parts of Ukraine, and the US annex Panama, Greenland and Canada, why can't the PRC annex Taiwan?
If the attention it deserves is limited to an article in the guardian it’s not exactly a Twitter storm or the rest of the media relaying his thoughts.
He’s irrelevant as are the LDs. Reform are a bunch of nuts and they get more coverage with their smaller seat base.
Even Elon Musk hasn’t bothered to have a pop at him as he doesn’t know he’s being criticised by him.
Labour seems to be moving towards where they need to be. Hammering NIMBYs and getting stuff done.
Only concern I have is the "anti growth coalition" in the part like Miliband and Khan, who are already pushing back at it. In the case of Andy Burnham his objections seem parochial and more about driving the investment into his area. Good on him.
An interesting pivot from labour.
So yes, get ready for his gurning expression and his voice to be more familiar to you than a close loved one for 4 years.
Tory shadow levelling up secretary Kevin Hollinrake accused Labour of "taking forward Conservative initiatives" but warned their efforts would fail unless they stopped "blocking our attempts to cut EU legacy red tape".
Khan, bluntly, doesn't seem very consequential to me. Its a high profile role and so can cause embarrassment or have influence, but a three time mayor looks like settling for not playing at the top table of government.
Radio 4 had a MAGA on this morning commenting, in a very reasonable tone of voice, on the plans for an Ukraine “deal”. In his words deal is probably the wrong term, what they’re looking for is a ceasefire where we all agree to disagree. That means in practical terms Russia gets to keep everything it’s taken.
As to the second point, taking something if you are able was normal in history, its post WW2 thats odd. So of course anywhere could do it. But could they wait until im dead?
I think some of his ideas are crackers (carbon capture, 5% reliance on gas also seems a bit low) but he seems one of the few who actually had a plan for when in government and is cracking on with it.
Also one rule maker amongst 28 or more isn't really a rule maker, especially when, in practice, most of the time the majority votes the way the Commission wants.
The best, or least bad, situation I think is the one we're in now.
A full amphibious invasion isn't even a remotely possibility and the Breakaway Province must be one of the hardest islands on earth to invade. The Taiwan Strait is a difficult body of water with frequent monsoons, the west coast of Taiwan is very shallow and the east coast has cliffs.
2049 (100th anniversary of the CCP) is Xi's self declared deadline for the unification of China. I think they are much more likely to achieve by the slow strangulation of Taiwanese democracy until they can install a regime sympathetic to Beijing. From there, it's just the Hong Kong plan.
Total Ukrainian territory under Russian control 44000 km2
Taiwan 36000 km2
"We can dictate to Europe what happens here" is one such nonsense. No. We can't. Remember when we dropped CE for UKCA? Setting our own little UK standard for electrical conformity rather than using the proper one used by everyone? An expensive and embarrassing waste of time before we dropped it to return to CE.
So the question of who the UK would like to be closely linked with in trade blocs is not unrelated to who western Europe expects to give them a hand against the Russians and any other enemies that popped up.
A few moments ago our world was this: The EU was free Europe economically; and militarily that free Europe was the same outfits extended to friendly USA and Canada, without which everyone knew that free Europe had limited fire power with the joker in the pack being France and UK's nuclear threat.
We can place no reliance on that old picture. To the question in the YouGov survey could be added: 'In the event of a Russian invasion of a further free European country would you prefer (1) the USA army or (2) the EU army to be on your side'.
https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1876258736131416409
Shortlist announced in SMR competition
2 October 2023
https://namrc.co.uk/industry/gbn-smr-shortlist/
The Gazette has asked me to do 800 words on Trump: Is he Good For Diorite Dildos, etc
So at least I'm making money from The Don
A government with a large majority needs to push this hard, against objections from the likes of Miliband and Khan, it will be fascinating to see how Starmer resolves this internal difference of opinion.
Knew i liked them for a reason.
I agree with you.
2049 is a stretch goal, unless he's just not bothered.
A total economic blockade is about his best bet. If China were prepared to actually sink a few ships, then it might well work. They're almost at the point where their military is strong enough to risk such a thing.
But it would be a massive risk, with plenty of downside. Not very Chinese.
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
But when solar + batteries falls past the other options - which it will - what then?
To some, the idea of cheap power fuelling growth is another problem.
The invasion fleet will be there as a warning; the clunking fist to the soft threats.
China will say "These are our waters, not international ones. Keep out." And it will be up to the west to see if we try to force the issue militarily. Which may be more than a little difficult.
This also fits in with the adventurism we have seen from the Chinese navy over the last few years.
Xi and the Chinese are many things, but they are not stupid.
Not sure whose FTA is technically closer - the UK-EU one or Nu-NAFTA but it's probably ours, I would think.
As to, say, the London airport timeline, those who like me are old enough to recall it will note that the timeline began in 1968, but 57 years ago, when the Roskill commission statred to sit. Still counting.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
Don’t line up behind the Chancellor on raising Air Passenger Duty though.
Good Morning from the "Breakaway Province".
In defence of your position, I'm not sure that a reply from Musk means anything at all, since he's a complete flippertigibbert.
To my eye, the Davey piece has a lot of good things in it, and is addressing social media from a decent angle - what are these problems, and how can we work on them?
IIRC, there's enough in the Labour manifesto to support some adjustments of the regulatory setup.
( @Theuniondivvie , "Eye of Sauron" is quite good, nearly as good as "Il Douche".)
While solar panel costs continue to fall , nuclear costs only ever go one way - and then some, regardless of size or technology.
We might as well bite the bullet and spunk £20 billion on some massive inter-connectors & storage from Morocco.
You could use the additional funds to build lots of cycle lanes and electric buses in the north of England.
I am all in favour of renewables but for the foreseeable future we will need oil and gas and we will also need oil for the other by products that come from it.
It looks very serene.
For all the talk of the Zeitgeist, and Overton windows and je suis Tommie there is still a market out there for more old school politics.
Mind you given that Trump is thinking of abolishing FEMA there are even crazier plans afoot.
The UK's trade deficit in goods is largely offset by a surplus in services. The overall deficit isn't large compared with the size of the economy.
It's this kind of idiocy that leads to people claiming we must be self sufficient in making / producing their pet hobby horse.
If you think having a deficit in making ultra cheap clothes or shoes is a bad thing (or "bad for growth") you are deluded.
It seems David Ricardo's ideas were wasted on the country of his birth.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I'm sure they will all crib about Heathrow trying to inflate the cost, but no country the size of the UK is going to have 2 hub and spoke airports within 40 miles of each other.