The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
It’s one thing I envy Leon. He has a job which allows him a huge amount of time for reading.
Or wasting his entire life on PB (He says while enjoying a pint of Shere Drop in the local).
An imo bannable offence on PB is judging others' presence on PB with the implication that it is a lesser activity while commenting on PB.
Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what value should be ascribed to any particular activity.
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"
Is anyone on here old enough to remember the good ol' days when the US had a far more sane and reasonable President who focused more on matters of import like covfefe and bleach injections rather than world domination?
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
We should simply keep the Islands we have. The whole International order thing is just nonsense. I've no idea what the Americans are paying us for their lease, but I suspect it isn't enough.
This whole running away nonsense really needs to end.
(I say this as someone that would never vote Reform)
AIUI, we receive an annual discount on Polaris in return for Diego Garcia, and said discount is in the tens of millions.
Whoopy doo - tens of millions vs tens of billions!?
Oi - you can't compare an annual to an aggregate. C'mon.
You're quite right. Nonetheless there's surely a disparity.
Unless the detail of both deals is published, we have no real idea.
What Starmer should have done is list it in the defence budget as the cost of maintaining the base, and published the full detail at the outset. At least it would count towards the 2.5% target.
Or just told Mauritius politely to FO.
Either would have been better.
How could he publish the full detail at the outset of negotiations, when you don’t know what the negotiations are going to conclude?
On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?
Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:
- watching flies fuck - giving rats massages - spending years digging into why jellyfish glow - tracking penguin poop from space - using horseshoe crab blood.. https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637
Ummm:
I suspect "watching flies fuck", is actually about better understanding flies breeding, which is pretty important from a public health perspective one would have thought.
And it's a sign of the extraordinary ignorance of the tweeter that they don't understand that horseshoe crab blood is the only source of Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL), which coagulates in the presence of bacterial endotoxins. A lot of modern medicine is dependent on horseshoe crab blood, and the need to find a source of LAL that doesn't come from crabs is BFD.
The top tweet appears to have just been to grab attention? And what did the taxpayer get?
Watching flies mate led to the sterile insect technique, eradicating the screwworm fly from North America, saving the livestock industry over $20 billion and reducing beef prices by 5%...
Using horseshoe crab blood led to the LAL test, now a gold standard for detecting bacterial contamination in medical gear, vaccines, & injectable drugs. It detects contaminants at levels less than one part per trillion, and has prevented countless infections and saved many lives
So obviously we’re not good at predicting what impacts research will have.
I also don’t think it should be just about dollars and lives. Discovery feeds our curiosity as humans, inspires art & science, and reminds us why we explore in the first place.
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?
Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:
- watching flies fuck - giving rats massages - spending years digging into why jellyfish glow - tracking penguin poop from space - using horseshoe crab blood.. https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637
Just in case anyone has not noticed yet, this was a very skilful Heffelump Trap to trip up, then maybe wake-up, some of the not-totally-programmed Trumpists, and neutrals.
On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?
Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:
- watching flies fuck - giving rats massages - spending years digging into why jellyfish glow - tracking penguin poop from space - using horseshoe crab blood.. https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637
Since my son is keen on penguins, I might be able to help. "tracking penguin poop from space" allows scientists to detect and track penguin colonies, including undiscovered ones. This is because the poop leaves large brain stains that can be tracked much easier than individual penguins.
The others sound ridiculous, but there might be some interesting reasons why they were done.
Edit: ah, I can see from the replies that it was the point of the tweet!
That is a clever tweet. Did not know about the massage thing. I hope everyone has now gone back and read the replies and realised they missed the point.
@TOPPING All ok? You seem to have got angry at a few innocuous or just for fun posts this evening.
"He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts."
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?
Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:
- watching flies fuck - giving rats massages - spending years digging into why jellyfish glow - tracking penguin poop from space - using horseshoe crab blood.. https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637
Just in case anyone has not noticed yet, this was a very skilful Heffelump Trap to trip up, then maybe wake-up, some of the not-totally-programmed Trumpists, and neutrals.
Read the thread !
In fairness to some if I click the link I cannot see the replies as I don't have an account, so people may not have had a chance to see the rest of thread - nitter is very useful in that regard.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
Our unconscious knows how to run our bodies better than we do. Essentially, I am looking to utilise the unconscious process to make changes to the body.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
"Vast" is a bit OTT. But that doesn't matter, I was just giving what I see as important context for the debate around this. Rules v Might is Right.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
Build more houses!
There's been at least a bit of a shift to the right talk about building more houses, though it is not yet accepted enough for my liking.
But I have seen a few counter arguments pop up of the 'X won't solve all of problem Y, therefore we shouldn't bother' variety, which is a popular political blocking method. But a change in argument from classical nimbyism may still be a positive sign of being on the back foot - at least until election season.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
"Vast" is a bit OTT. But that doesn't matter, I was just giving what I see as important context for the debate around this. Rules v Might is Right.
The modern structures of international law were a response to the devastating nature of the Napoleonic wars, the First World War, the Second World War and the Holocaust. They have worked extremely well in promoting peace and stability for the last three quarters of a century, and supported huge economic growth and prosperity.
Do we really want to be like those who ignore them — Putin, Netanyahu, Trump — or do we want to work towards a better world?
It would make sense for Tories to put up paper candidates where Reform were second to Labour and Reform to put up paper candidates where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs. Though I can't see it happening
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
"Vast" is a bit OTT. But that doesn't matter, I was just giving what I see as important context for the debate around this. Rules v Might is Right.
The modern structures of international law were a response to the devastating nature of the Napoleonic wars, the First World War, the Second World War and the Holocaust. They have worked extremely well in promoting peace and stability for the last three quarters of a century, and supported huge economic growth and prosperity.
Do we really want to be like those who ignore them — Putin, Netanyahu, Trump — or do we want to work towards a better world?
I don't agree with all 'international law' arguments, so I don't think that reasoning should always be accepted uncritically, but I think there are genuine risks in getting too blase around international norms. We're already seeing wars of simple conquest back on the agenda.
In a similar vein to when people lament the last few decades of american dominance, which can be fair, but can overlook some potential downsides, as put here.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
I think the word is 'flailing' but I may be wrong.
As I have said many times on PB she was not ready for prime time and it is looking all a bit William Hague (although he was far funnier at PMQs).
But who could replace her?
The lack of depth and talent in the Tory MP bench is somewhat noticeable.
Maybe no one of any stature, character and depth wants to be an MP anymore?
My own for example, having won a seat only six months ago for first time, has managed to disappear beyond trace. I mean, why give up your old life to literally do nothing????
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
It’s one thing I envy Leon. He has a job which allows him a huge amount of time for reading.
Or wasting his entire life on PB (He says while enjoying a pint of Shere Drop in the local).
An imo bannable offence on PB is judging others' presence on PB with the implication that it is a lesser activity while commenting on PB.
Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what value should be ascribed to any particular activity.
Oh very touchy tonight aren't we? It should have been apparent by my subsequent sentence and my obvious presence that it was an obvious joke.
Yeah I'd already committed myself before I reread your post.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
at least he knows about rockets, and how they explode.
So even then Farage couldn't become PM without Tory confidence and supply.
If that was the result the Tories immediately merge with Reform and there's a bumfight over whether they get to keep the naming rights.
Under FPTP such a result would likely lead to a Reform and Tory merger as in Canada in 2003.
However if Labour and the LDs won enough seats to form a government as most polls still suggest and introduced PR even if Reform overtook the Tories on seats they could remain a separate party and still win about 100 seats via proportional representation on 15-20%. Much as the main centre right party in Austria, Italy and Sweden and the Netherlands has done despite falling behind the populist nationalist right party on votes and seats as they have PR. New Zealand, Germany and Spain also have PR and the main centre right party still ahead and running separately from the main nationalist party and both winning significant seats
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?
SpaceX needs to retain the good clever people - they may be a lot of second / third tier people who others would be happy to lose to the Government.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
What happens after your family has been here a generation is that you become a populist anti-immigration politician.
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
SAS 'not justified' in 1992 shooting of four IRA men
The use of lethal force by SAS soldiers was unjustified when they opened fire killing four IRA men in an ambush at Clonoe in County Tyrone, an inquest has ruled.
Kevin Barry O'Donnell, 21, Sean O'Farrell, 22, Peter Clancy, 21, and Patrick Vincent, 20, died in February 1992, minutes after they had carried out a gun attack on Coalisland police station.
The soldiers opened fire as the men arrived at St Patrick's Church car park in a hijacked lorry which had a heavy machine gun welded to its tailgate. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8kpxgdyyvo
This will not help the narrative.
Could only happen in UK, you are only allowed to defend yourself when you are dead, anywhere else if you fear for your life you just drop the bad un's
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
It’s one thing I envy Leon. He has a job which allows him a huge amount of time for reading.
Or wasting his entire life on PB (He says while enjoying a pint of Shere Drop in the local).
An imo bannable offence on PB is judging others' presence on PB with the implication that it is a lesser activity while commenting on PB.
Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what value should be ascribed to any particular activity.
Oh very touchy tonight aren't we? It should have been apparent by my subsequent sentence and my obvious presence that it was an obvious joke.
Yeah I'd already committed myself before I reread your post.
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
Vote Splorg! Vote often!
I admit I'd vote for them just because they sound like a Pertwee-era Dr.Who baddie who turns out just to have been misunderstood.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
We should simply keep the Islands we have. The whole International order thing is just nonsense. I've no idea what the Americans are paying us for their lease, but I suspect it isn't enough.
This whole running away nonsense really needs to end.
(I say this as someone that would never vote Reform)
AIUI, we receive an annual discount on Polaris in return for Diego Garcia, and said discount is in the tens of millions.
Whoopy doo - tens of millions vs tens of billions!?
Oi - you can't compare an annual to an aggregate. C'mon.
You're quite right. Nonetheless there's surely a disparity.
Unless the detail of both deals is published, we have no real idea.
What Starmer should have done is list it in the defence budget as the cost of maintaining the base, and published the full detail at the outset. At least it would count towards the 2.5% target.
Or just told Mauritius politely to FO.
Either would have been better.
How could he publish the full detail at the outset of negotiations, when you don’t know what the negotiations are going to conclude?
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?
SpaceX needs to retain the good clever people - they may be a lot of second / third tier people who others would be happy to lose to the Government.
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...
15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?
Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:
- watching flies fuck - giving rats massages - spending years digging into why jellyfish glow - tracking penguin poop from space - using horseshoe crab blood.. https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637
Just in case anyone has not noticed yet, this was a very skilful Heffelump Trap to trip up, then maybe wake-up, some of the not-totally-programmed Trumpists, and neutrals.
Read the thread !
Some of us can't. Don't want to pay money/data to access X.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?
SpaceX needs to retain the good clever people - they may be a lot of second / third tier people who others would be happy to lose to the Government.
Elon Musk springs to mind.
I know he is supposed to be a busy man, and alleged Ketamin use may well help increase hours, but given all his time mouthing off on twitter and now his government related work, how much time does he spend thesedays on decisions at his various companies, rather than just promotion? It must be much less than it sued to be.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?
Not if it turns out to be a bust. Looking at how the contract for Artemis was awarded it was dodgy as hell, and are way behind schedule.
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...
15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
(I'm using the "Voting" tab)
The DNV number sounds a note of caution for them though. Will those people actually turn up.
This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.
Trump has a view of America and America’s status and purpose in the world which we haven’t heard for decades. In a generous mood, I’d call it benevolent superiority. He and his kind genuinely believe they can make things better but only on their terms in their way in their time.
A form of imperialism from the great republic? Well, it happened to Rome so why not? I like the idea of American billions pouring into Gaza, rebuilding and restoring the land and the infrastructure- it should of course be Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dhabi and Qatari billions - but capitalism is exploitative and while a few enterprising Palestinians might prosper, my sense is it would end up like the proposed Singapore-on-Thames.
People busy making money are usually too busy to make trouble in my experience and of course the great Gaza Reconstruction Project would mean a lot of work for a lot of people which, after decades of Hamas misrule, would be an improvement of sorts.
This all presupposes an inate benevolence or paternalism within Trump and his kind and that’s where I have a problem. The post war plans for Iraq suggested a country run ineffectively by American based corporations - that’s both the new imperialism and the old imperialism.
The Marshall Plan wasn’t created just for largesse - it had a hard edged political significance. Trump’s plan is the same - I know it and I bet he knows it.
Ethical foreign policies may make some feel warm and cuddly - capitalist foreign policies are often more effective. Money talks, men walk and whether it’s the frozen wastes of Greenland or the South West Pacific, modern foreign policy works on the age old principle you catch more flies with honey than with flypaper.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?
Not if it turns out to be a bust. Looking at how the contract for Artemis was awarded it was dodgy as hell, and are way behind schedule.
Well I'm sure they won't get any preferential treatment now.
The Lib Dems might make him PM in exchange for a referendum on PR.
The Lib Dems have no incentive to support any government unless it offers them PR without the referendum. If it's good enough for Scotland, Wales and, in various forms, the large majority of Europe, then why not the Commons?
Besides, I'm not sure anyone has the appetite for more referendums after the last two.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
at least he knows about rockets, and how they explode.
I may be unfair, but his idea of rocket development seems to be rather von Braun - think a lot, design a lot, and fire lots off, modifying till they don't go bang*. Though it makes much more sense with modern telemetry. And he doesn't complain, unlike the media about NASA (vide: Vanguard) when they do go pop meantime.
*Or, at least, bang too early, in the case of Dr. v. B. and Aggregat-4.
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
The original phrase was “*trying to be*too clever by half”
Ie they were pretending to be more sophisticated than they are and were caught out
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
Well, yes. But to be fair to Badenoch, she’s actually proposing a Tory policy to deal with a problem the Tories created in government by allowing such an enormous increase in immigration post Brexit.
From the POV of her and Farage’s side of politics, the potential right to citizenship of several million immigrants is likely to be as big an issue as ongoing immigration.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.
So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.
So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.
It seems to me that Lab are about 25 and falling, Reform about 25 and rising, Tories about 22/23 and falling, and the position is changing fairly rapidly.
Until there is a substantial mood change, the position is that no-one is loved and popular, Reform have a ceiling and its just possible the Tories don't have a very secure floor. I think Labour have a floor at above 20.
NOTA, DK, Won't Vote and Don't Care are all in prime positions to rise.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.
So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.
Why does the question not include the current length of time and proposed length of time? Surely that's fairly important to the answer given - because most people tend to underestimate (as they overestimate spending) these things and I reckon will say it's shorter than 6 years.
Greetings from the dining car of the Caledonian Sleeper, where I seem to be sharing the train with several lairds dressed variously in check shirts and cloth caps, and 3-pieces and ties with bloodshot noses, the latter straight out of the House of Lords.
This leads me to coin a new German compound noun. Ortsspezifischer Getränkewunsch. Ok that’s 2 words but.
The desire to drink the beverage that is specific to the place you’re in. The only time I really fancy a Guinness is in Dublin. In Provence I always want Rose. In Spain I down lots of fino with my jamon. I would only ever touch ouzo or retsina in Greece. In Japan I have an Asahi before dinner then lots of sake. And on the Caledonian I’m wanting whisky, which I rarely ever fancy outside Burns night.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.
So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.
Why does the question not include the current length of time and proposed length of time? Surely that's fairly important to the answer given - because most people tend to underestimate (as they overestimate spending) these things and I reckon will say it's shorter than 6 years.
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
The original phrase was “*trying to be*too clever by half”
Ie they were pretending to be more sophisticated than they are and were caught out
Greetings from the dining car of the Caledonian Sleeper, where I seem to be sharing the train with several lairds dressed variously in check shirts and cloth caps, and 3-pieces and ties with bloodshot noses, the latter straight out of the House of Lords.
This leads me to coin a new German compound noun. Ortsspezifischer Getränkewunsch. Ok that’s 2 words but.
The desire to drink the beverage that is specific to the place you’re in. The only time I really fancy a Guinness is in Dublin. In Provence I always want Rose. In Spain I down lots of fino with my jamon. I would only ever touch ouzo or retsina in Greece. In Japan I have an Asahi before dinner then lots of sake. And on the Caledonian I’m wanting whisky, which I rarely ever fancy outside Burns night.
Traditionally it would be a four pack of Tennents consumed hurriedly between Queen Street and Waverley while desperately trying to control your bladder.
Greetings from the dining car of the Caledonian Sleeper, where I seem to be sharing the train with several lairds dressed variously in check shirts and cloth caps, and 3-pieces and ties with bloodshot noses, the latter straight out of the House of Lords.
This leads me to coin a new German compound noun. Ortsspezifischer Getränkewunsch. Ok that’s 2 words but.
The desire to drink the beverage that is specific to the place you’re in. The only time I really fancy a Guinness is in Dublin. In Provence I always want Rose. In Spain I down lots of fino with my jamon. I would only ever touch ouzo or retsina in Greece. In Japan I have an Asahi before dinner then lots of sake. And on the Caledonian I’m wanting whisky, which I rarely ever fancy outside Burns night.
Applies to soft beverages too. Mint tea in North Africa. Masala Chai in India. Irn Bru in Glasgow. Wouldn’t bother drinking any of them at home.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...
15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
(I'm using the "Voting" tab)
The DNV number sounds a note of caution for them though. Will those people actually turn up.
This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.
What's left of it.
Who's still voting Conservative apart from the fraction of home owning pensioners who find Reform vulgar, angry farmers, a few rural Scottish Unionists, and Never Labour voters in straight Lab-Con contests? What use are they to anyone else?
The only thing that's surprising about Tory vote share is that it isn't even lower.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
I think the word is 'flailing' but I may be wrong.
As I have said many times on PB she was not ready for prime time and it is looking all a bit William Hague (although he was far funnier at PMQs).
But who could replace her?
The lack of depth and talent in the Tory MP bench is somewhat noticeable.
Maybe no one of any stature, character and depth wants to be an MP anymore?
My own for example, having won a seat only six months ago for first time, has managed to disappear beyond trace. I mean, why give up your old life to literally do nothing????
The current state of play is awful for the Tories. Everything about leadership is contextual. What the leader of the Greens/LDs/PC says doesn't resonate or matter because the party doesn't matter enough. It's beginning to feel like that with the Tories. Badenoch may be OK if she was the leader of a party that mattered but it begins to feel that they don't. We are not listening. We don't need to. Far more so, for those with long memories, than Labour not mattering with the SDP on the rise.
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...
15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
(I'm using the "Voting" tab)
I missed the biggest story - in this poll, Reform have a lead over the Conservatives in every age group except over 75s, and in every region/country. London is now a Conservative stronghold...
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
The original phrase was “*trying to be*too clever by half”
Ie they were pretending to be more sophisticated than they are and were caught out
So as a description it fits Leon then?
I don't know where the phrase originates but the earliest usage I'm aware of is the Marquis of Salisbury disparaging RA Butler as 'too clever by half', paving the way for Supermac to No. 10. Poor RAB had to be content with the mastership of Trinity: a sad but all too predictable denouement for one who is too clever (but can't conceal it).
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.
I think he’s thinking of the ICC, which indeed the US didn’t opt into.
Kosovo votes on Sunday. The current PM, Kurti, has been criticised by the Trump administration and Kurti is very anti-Trump. A test for whether being anti-Trump is a vote winner or a vote loser?
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?
Now I’m on the Cally sleeper I’m keeping Andy Murray’s gongs for Britain.
Trump has a view of America and America’s status and purpose in the world which we haven’t heard for decades. In a generous mood, I’d call it benevolent superiority. He and his kind genuinely believe they can make things better but only on their terms in their way in their time.
A form of imperialism from the great republic? Well, it happened to Rome so why not? I like the idea of American billions pouring into Gaza, rebuilding and restoring the land and the infrastructure- it should of course be Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dhabi and Qatari billions - but capitalism is exploitative and while a few enterprising Palestinians might prosper, my sense is it would end up like the proposed Singapore-on-Thames.
People busy making money are usually too busy to make trouble in my experience and of course the great Gaza Reconstruction Project would mean a lot of work for a lot of people which, after decades of Hamas misrule, would be an improvement of sorts.
This all presupposes an inate benevolence or paternalism within Trump and his kind and that’s where I have a problem. The post war plans for Iraq suggested a country run ineffectively by American based corporations - that’s both the new imperialism and the old imperialism.
The Marshall Plan wasn’t created just for largesse - it had a hard edged political significance. Trump’s plan is the same - I know it and I bet he knows it…
The Marshall plan had massive benefits for both donor and recipients. No such thing here.
Trump just wants to dump a couple of million people somewhere else. The likelihood of his benefitting either them or their hosts is pretty negligible.
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...
15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
(I'm using the "Voting" tab)
The DNV number sounds a note of caution for them though. Will those people actually turn up.
This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.
What's left of it.
Who's still voting Conservative apart from the fraction of home owning pensioners who find Reform vulgar, angry farmers, a few rural Scottish Unionists, and Never Labour voters in straight Lab-Con contests? What use are they to anyone else?
The only thing that's surprising about Tory vote share is that it isn't even lower.
The Tories have had terrible times before, but I can't remember ever a time when politics watchers taking a long view might begin to wonder whether there is a way back. It's not the figures, though they are dire; it's the combination of calibre/quality and momentum of the parties who want to beat them seat by seat. In almost every seat - and they start with only a few - they are vulnerable to one of LD, Lab and Reform. If that combines, by the magic of voter momentum, to ensure only one of them is the real challenger in virtually every seat they hold, and most they don't, the Tories look finished.
Kosovo votes on Sunday. The current PM, Kurti, has been criticised by the Trump administration and Kurti is very anti-Trump. A test for whether being anti-Trump is a vote winner or a vote loser?
I would hazard a guess that in the ottoman world Trump counts for less, because they already have Erdogan who’s equally wicked but ten times as sly.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.
So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.
Meh.
The weasly word salad above sounds just like when someone tells us how passionate China is about climate change because they've installed some solar (as they open another 100 coalmines). True except it isn't.
The United States played a major role in setting up the PCIJ but never joined.[8] Presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt all supported membership, but did not get the two-thirds majority in the Senate required for a treaty.[9]
Trump has a view of America and America’s status and purpose in the world which we haven’t heard for decades. In a generous mood, I’d call it benevolent superiority. He and his kind genuinely believe they can make things better but only on their terms in their way in their time.
A form of imperialism from the great republic? Well, it happened to Rome so why not? I like the idea of American billions pouring into Gaza, rebuilding and restoring the land and the infrastructure- it should of course be Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dhabi and Qatari billions - but capitalism is exploitative and while a few enterprising Palestinians might prosper, my sense is it would end up like the proposed Singapore-on-Thames.
People busy making money are usually too busy to make trouble in my experience and of course the great Gaza Reconstruction Project would mean a lot of work for a lot of people which, after decades of Hamas misrule, would be an improvement of sorts.
This all presupposes an inate benevolence or paternalism within Trump and his kind and that’s where I have a problem. The post war plans for Iraq suggested a country run ineffectively by American based corporations - that’s both the new imperialism and the old imperialism.
The Marshall Plan wasn’t created just for largesse - it had a hard edged political significance. Trump’s plan is the same - I know it and I bet he knows it.
Ethical foreign policies may make some feel warm and cuddly - capitalist foreign policies are often more effective. Money talks, men walk and whether it’s the frozen wastes of Greenland or the South West Pacific, modern foreign policy works on the age old principle you catch more flies with honey than with flypaper.
Trump's plan, I thought, involved all the Palestinians being removed first whether they are enterprising or not.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.
I think he’s thinking of the ICC, which indeed the US didn’t opt into.
Possibly, though the ICC hasn't got anything to do with the Chagos Islands situation.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.
Meh.
The weasly word salad above sounds just like when someone tells us how passionate China is about climate change because they've installed some solar (as they open another 100 coalmines). True except it isn't.
The United States played a major role in setting up the PCIJ but never joined.[8] Presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt all supported membership, but did not get the two-thirds majority in the Senate required for a treaty.[9]
The PCIJ isn't the ICJ and you're an idiot. 'weasly word salad' - seemed fairly straightforward statement of the facts which you are obviously totally ignorant of.
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.
The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.
Meh.
The weasly word salad above sounds just like when someone tells us how passionate China is about climate change because they've installed some solar (as they open another 100 coalmines). True except it isn't.
The United States played a major role in setting up the PCIJ but never joined.[8] Presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt all supported membership, but did not get the two-thirds majority in the Senate required for a treaty.[9]
The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs
Then…. Invade America
So we can
<<<<< checks notes again >>>>
Impose force on a chaotic American state
Yes
Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.
Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.
Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.
Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.
But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."
The original phrase was “*trying to be*too clever by half”
Ie they were pretending to be more sophisticated than they are and were caught out
So as a description it fits Leon then?
I don't know where the phrase originates but the earliest usage I'm aware of is the Marquis of Salisbury disparaging RA Butler as 'too clever by half', paving the way for Supermac to No. 10. Poor RAB had to be content with the mastership of Trinity: a sad but all too predictable denouement for one who is too clever (but can't conceal it).
Be warned, all of you.
Yes, the MoS used it in the way we now understand - reflecting a general British suspicion of 'cleverness'.
Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...
15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
(I'm using the "Voting" tab)
The DNV number sounds a note of caution for them though. Will those people actually turn up.
This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.
What's left of it.
Who's still voting Conservative apart from the fraction of home owning pensioners who find Reform vulgar, angry farmers, a few rural Scottish Unionists, and Never Labour voters in straight Lab-Con contests? What use are they to anyone else?
The only thing that's surprising about Tory vote share is that it isn't even lower.
The Tories have had terrible times before, but I can't remember ever a time when politics watchers taking a long view might begin to wonder whether there is a way back. It's not the figures, though they are dire; it's the combination of calibre/quality and momentum of the parties who want to beat them seat by seat. In almost every seat - and they start with only a few - they are vulnerable to one of LD, Lab and Reform. If that combines, by the magic of voter momentum, to ensure only one of them is the real challenger in virtually every seat they hold, and most they don't, the Tories look finished.
You do wonder whether they might disappear, or just morph into a relict special interest group for very rural places that are traditionalist, with an aged population and a lot of farmers. Richmond (Yorks) is a prime exemplar. It's no basis for a governing party but could let them hold onto a couple of dozen seats reasonably comfortably.
But that might be overly pessimistic for them. Everything depends on what sort of ceiling Reform has, rather than the Tories' own efforts. Discontent with the new Government isn't manifesting itself into a dramatic swing back to the Conservatives, because they are so discredited. But if Reform can't build enough support to break out of poor white areas then that leaves a lot of ex-Conservative voters who have sat on their hands or switched to Labour still up for grabs, if and when those voters are ready to grant the Tories a hearing again. Though how long that might take is anyone's guess.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?
I always felt a little ambivalent about Mo Farah. Nothing against him as a person, but, yes, it's clear his success owes far more to his East African genetics than any nurturing of his talent that the UK might have done. As can be seen that almost every single successful global long distance runner was born in East Africa and none were born in the UK.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?
I always felt a little ambivalent about Mo Farah. Nothing against him as a person, but, yes, it's clear his success owes far more to his East African genetics than any nurturing of his talent that the UK might have done. As can be seen that almost every single successful global long distance runner was born in East Africa and none were born in the UK.
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
Sounds like a tech equivalent of Rachel Reeves.
A CIO is a policy setting position. A CTO is the one who picks technologies….
You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹
Finally, I get it
😈
The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you. Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden. When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.
And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️
You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.
Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.
I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.
It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.
"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.
So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.
There are two sides to this, though.
One is the cost/benefit of the international deal - which argues in favour of some agreement (though the detail of the costs of this one, and indeed the value of the base to the UK in monetary terms, are not public).
The other is the domestic political presentation, which Starmer has royally screwed up, thus far.
No doubt in my mind Chagos deal was reached in close consultation with US officials. It’s on HMG headed paper, but this plan B dictated to us by the Americans, though British interest is there too in positioning itself to partner India in Indian Ocean security, so in that regard it might actually be forward looking to economic centres and security concerns in the coming century.
What I don’t understand at all is why UK and US ethically cleansed Chagos of Chagossians. It seems unChristian to do that, did they really have too? I feel Chagossians have been hard done by. Can they not come back? Or instead are we cynically going to bung them money in the deal, for wherever they are dispora now.
Ha, Kwasi being extremely measured in the C4 documentary on Musk, who’d have thunk? Gove being a greasy little equivocator, as everyone would have thunk.
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?
Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?
I always felt a little ambivalent about Mo Farah. Nothing against him as a person, but, yes, it's clear his success owes far more to his East African genetics than any nurturing of his talent that the UK might have done. As can be seen that almost every single successful global long distance runner was born in East Africa and none were born in the UK.
I suspect he may also be a bit ambivalent about Cookie's contribution to the UK.
Comments
David Lloyd Badenoch
And what did the taxpayer get?
Watching flies mate led to the sterile insect technique, eradicating the screwworm fly from North America, saving the livestock industry over $20 billion and reducing beef prices by 5%...
Using horseshoe crab blood led to the LAL test, now a gold standard for detecting bacterial contamination in medical gear, vaccines, & injectable drugs. It detects contaminants at levels less than one part per trillion, and has prevented countless infections and saved many lives
So obviously we’re not good at predicting what impacts research will have.
I also don’t think it should be just about dollars and lives. Discovery feeds our curiosity as humans, inspires art & science, and reminds us why we explore in the first place.
That wonder has value too.
https://nitter.poast.org/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637
Read the thread !
·
27m
I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration
If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier
In service of larger breasts.
But I have seen a few counter arguments pop up of the 'X won't solve all of problem Y, therefore we shouldn't bother' variety, which is a popular political blocking method. But a change in argument from classical nimbyism may still be a positive sign of being on the back foot - at least until election season.
Do we really want to be like those who ignore them — Putin, Netanyahu, Trump — or do we want to work towards a better world?
https://bsky.app/profile/teroterotero.bsky.social/post/3lhjcmyi2b22t
In a similar vein to when people lament the last few decades of american dominance, which can be fair, but can overlook some potential downsides, as put here.
Though somewhat curious a poll comes out today with Reform ahead after the Tories were ahead in a poll yesterday
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1887046213700104406
As I have said many times on PB she was not ready for prime time and it is looking all a bit William Hague (although he was far funnier at PMQs).
But who could replace her?
The lack of depth and talent in the Tory MP bench is somewhat noticeable.
Maybe no one of any stature, character and depth wants to be an MP anymore?
My own for example, having won a seat only six months ago for first time, has managed to disappear beyond trace. I mean, why give up your old life to literally do nothing????
NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.
The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.
However if Labour and the LDs won enough seats to form a government as most polls still suggest and introduced PR even if Reform overtook the Tories on seats they could remain a separate party and still win about 100 seats via proportional representation on 15-20%. Much as the main centre right party in Austria, Italy and Sweden and the Netherlands has done despite falling behind the populist nationalist right party on votes and seats as they have PR.
New Zealand, Germany and Spain also have PR and the main centre right party still ahead and running separately from the main nationalist party and both winning significant seats
First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.
But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.
Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.
I admit I'd vote for them just because they sound like a Pertwee-era Dr.Who baddie who turns out just to have been misunderstood.
- 15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
- 1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
- Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
(I'm using the "Voting" tab)This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.
Trump has a view of America and America’s status and purpose in the world which we haven’t heard for decades. In a generous mood, I’d call it benevolent superiority. He and his kind genuinely believe they can make things better but only on their terms in their way in their time.
A form of imperialism from the great republic? Well, it happened to Rome so why not? I like the idea of American billions pouring into Gaza, rebuilding and restoring the land and the infrastructure- it should of course be Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dhabi and Qatari billions - but capitalism is exploitative and while a few enterprising Palestinians might prosper, my sense is it would end up like the proposed Singapore-on-Thames.
People busy making money are usually too busy to make trouble in my experience and of course the great Gaza Reconstruction Project would mean a lot of work for a lot of people which, after decades of Hamas misrule, would be an improvement of sorts.
This all presupposes an inate benevolence or paternalism within Trump and his kind and that’s where I have a problem. The post war plans for Iraq suggested a country run ineffectively by American based corporations - that’s both the new imperialism and the old imperialism.
The Marshall Plan wasn’t created just for largesse - it had a hard edged political significance. Trump’s plan is the same - I know it and I bet he knows it.
Ethical foreign policies may make some feel warm and cuddly - capitalist foreign policies are often more effective. Money talks, men walk and whether it’s the frozen wastes of Greenland or the South West Pacific, modern foreign policy works on the age old principle you catch more flies with honey than with flypaper.
Besides, I'm not sure anyone has the appetite for more referendums after the last two.
*Or, at least, bang too early, in the case of Dr. v. B. and Aggregat-4.
Ie they were pretending to be more sophisticated than they are and were caught out
But to be fair to Badenoch, she’s actually proposing a Tory policy to deal with a problem the Tories created in government by allowing such an enormous increase in immigration post Brexit.
From the POV of her and Farage’s side of politics, the potential right to citizenship of several million immigrants is likely to be as big an issue as ongoing immigration.
So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1887535577987166267?t=ctB1L6RktuagZFkqOhtAUg&s=19
https://www.wsj.com/tech/doge-staffer-resigns-over-racist-posts-d9f11a93
Until there is a substantial mood change, the position is that no-one is loved and popular, Reform have a ceiling and its just possible the Tories don't have a very secure floor. I think Labour have a floor at above 20.
NOTA, DK, Won't Vote and Don't Care are all in prime positions to rise.
This leads me to coin a new German compound noun. Ortsspezifischer Getränkewunsch. Ok that’s 2 words but.
The desire to drink the beverage that is specific to the place you’re in. The only time I really fancy a Guinness is in Dublin. In Provence I always want Rose. In Spain I down lots of fino with my jamon. I would only ever touch ouzo or retsina in Greece. In Japan I have an Asahi before dinner then lots of sake. And on the Caledonian I’m wanting whisky, which I rarely ever fancy outside Burns night.
Then they banned it.
Who's still voting Conservative apart from the fraction of home owning pensioners who find Reform vulgar, angry farmers, a few rural Scottish Unionists, and Never Labour voters in straight Lab-Con contests? What use are they to anyone else?
The only thing that's surprising about Tory vote share is that it isn't even lower.
It's happening!
Be warned, all of you.
No such thing here.
Trump just wants to dump a couple of million people somewhere else. The likelihood of his benefitting either them or their hosts is pretty negligible.
But what proportion of the electorate has even noticed her policy announcement ?
The weasly word salad above sounds just like when someone tells us how passionate China is about climate change because they've installed some solar (as they open another 100 coalmines). True except it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
Liverpool 3 - 1 up on aggregate and Spurs look poor
Now 4 - 1 aggregate
But that might be overly pessimistic for them. Everything depends on what sort of ceiling Reform has, rather than the Tories' own efforts. Discontent with the new Government isn't manifesting itself into a dramatic swing back to the Conservatives, because they are so discredited. But if Reform can't build enough support to break out of poor white areas then that leaves a lot of ex-Conservative voters who have sat on their hands or switched to Labour still up for grabs, if and when those voters are ready to grant the Tories a hearing again. Though how long that might take is anyone's guess.
What I don’t understand at all is why UK and US ethically cleansed Chagos of Chagossians. It seems unChristian to do that, did they really have too? I feel Chagossians have been hard done by. Can they not come back? Or instead are we cynically going to bung them money in the deal, for wherever they are dispora now.
Good article by Rigby
https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-has-a-battle-on-his-hands-but-when-its-green-v-growth-theres-only-one-winner-13304301