Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The long term economic plan – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,648
    I knew Trump would be bad, but I guess I am surprised at just how crimey he is
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,955

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    There is an obvious answer to the state pension crisis that does not involve ever more immigrants or even home-produced babies.

    End the Ponzi scheme and actually invest
    NI payments, just like private pensions, and pay state pensions from this fund. There'd be a long period where existing pensions have to be paid out of current spending but the proportion would decline each year.
    While that makes sense the practical implication is that taxes today would have to rise to replace the income from pension contributions that is being saved not spent
  • Jonathan said:

    The big question for Tories flirting with Trumpian chaos and pacts with Reform, is whether they fundamentally believe in the system they (largely) created or not.

    Free Trade
    Rule of Law and fair contracts
    Separation of power/ limited executive
    International institutions and law

    Or are they revolutionaries and if they are, what do they want instead.

    Closed borders and Tariffs
    Corruption
    Powerful executive above the law
    Big state power

    Is that it?

    The answer then is for Labour to offer a better alternative rather than the utter mess they have made to date

    As for Wales Labour have been in power for too long
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
  • Nigelb said:

    Hegseth was probably on the sauce for this one:

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not rule out providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine, but such a decision will ultimately depend on U.S. President Donald Trump, he said in an interview with Breitbart News.
    https://x.com/Hromadske/status/1890332656002351223

    Hegseth has quickly learned that in these extraordinary times, anything he says might be revised or reversed by the President's random musings at his next press conference.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,955

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    Or you raise the birthrate via increased child benefit, childcare and married couples tax allowance
    Is it your view only married couples have children?
    According to a study by the University of Manchester:

    "In 2021, more babies – 51% – were born to unmarried mothers in England and Wales than to those in a marriage or civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845."

    So born outside wedlock is the majority status for new babies these days.
    Of course you can get married after having
    a child too as some do in our Essex
    churches.

    All the evidence is having married parents is best for raising children

    The key is a loving relationship devoted to the children irrespective of marital status
    The data actually shows that it is a *stable* parental unit rather than a *loving relationship* that matters for children
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,431

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    Worth remembering as far as pensions go that when the National Assistance Act 1948 which established the modern State Pension was passed, average male life expectency was 64.8 years. It was no accident that the pension age was set at 65.
    Bismarck has entered the chat.

    The state pension is effectively an asset worth £250k per person.
    Or effectively, a liability of £250k per person.
    It would be good if people could be informed of how much tax they had paid during their lives compared with how much benefits and pensions they had received.

    It might reduce some of the 'I paid my stamp' whining of people who clearly paid in less than they received.
    This might misjudge the national character, which may be to treat such information as an opportunity to try hard to make a profit on the deal.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436
    edited February 14

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Labour

    Warwick All Saints and Woodloes (Warwick) council by-election result:

    GRN: 34.9% (+22.1)
    REF: 21.8% (+21.8)
    LAB: 19.4% (-24.7)
    CON: 18.6% (-15.7)
    LDEM: 5.3% (-3.5)

    +/- 2023

    Great result for my party

    Who are the Putinists?
    You
    Care to explain your 'thinking' on that? Because your apparent hatred for Zelensky, and the joy you showed yesterday at Trump's betrayal of Ukraine, rather makes you appear like a Putinist shill.

    And therefore a shill for imperialism and fascism,.
    I think the logic is as follows:

    1) Starmer is bad for dissing Jezza.
    2) Starmer supports Zelensky and opposes Putin
    3) therefore Zelensky is bad and Putin is good.

    And the last step in BJO's decent into madness.

    4) Trump sides with Putin therefore Trump is good.

    Complete lunacy from a claimed socialist.
    I must say though that I didn’t foresee the BJO-Leon Pact.
    I’ve barely commented on Putin/Ukraine/Trump

    Merely noted that it is likely ending as I predicted. In a sad Korean style armistice
    I imagine putting a polish on the turd of the Trumpian sell out of Ukraine might defeat even your rhetorical dexterity.
    Is it a sell-out? We just don’t know yet. Trump is a blundering asshole a lot of the time - but quite often he is astute and clever. Eg are the Germans still laughing at him as in the UN, when he told them not to rely on Putin’s gas and Nordstream?

    The American turning away from NATO has been a long time coming. Anyone acting surprised is a twit. Europe is rich and big enough to defend itself, and should do so - a lot of Americans way beyond Trump believe this and they’re right
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    Or you raise the birthrate via increased child benefit, childcare and married couples tax allowance
    Is it your view only married couples have children?
    According to a study by the University of Manchester:

    "In 2021, more babies – 51% – were born to unmarried mothers in England and Wales than to those in a marriage or civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845."

    So born outside wedlock is the majority status for new babies these days.
    Of course you can get married after having
    a child too as some do in our Essex
    churches.

    All the evidence is having married parents is best for raising children

    The key is a loving relationship devoted to the children irrespective of marital status
    The data actually shows that it is a *stable* parental unit rather than a *loving relationship* that matters for children
    Probably better expressed but both would be ideal
  • Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    Biden is a doddery old fool.

    Trump is a DANGEROUSLY UNHINGED doddery old fool!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    It’s deranged
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,955

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    Or you raise the birthrate via increased child benefit, childcare and married couples tax allowance
    Is it your view only married couples have children?
    According to a study by the University of Manchester:

    "In 2021, more babies – 51% – were born to unmarried mothers in England and Wales than to those in a marriage or civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845."

    So born outside wedlock is the majority status for new babies these days.
    Of course you can get married after having
    a child too as some do in our Essex
    churches.

    All the evidence is having married parents is best for raising children

    The key is a loving relationship devoted to the children irrespective of marital status

    The data actually shows that it is a *stable* parental unit rather than a *loving relationship* that matters for children
    Probably better expressed but both would be ideal
    Of course. And marriage is the most stable unit (better than civil partnerships and way better than cohabitation).
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,648
    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,946
    edited February 14

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,108

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    Or you raise the birthrate via increased child benefit, childcare and married couples tax allowance
    Is it your view only married couples have children?
    According to a study by the University of Manchester:

    "In 2021, more babies – 51% – were born to unmarried mothers in England and Wales than to those in a marriage or civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845."

    So born outside wedlock is the majority status for new babies these days.
    I have a copy of the Baptismal Register for a small town in W. Wales where one of my ancestors was born in 1837. There are eight records on the page and three of them are annotated as the 'bastard' child of whoever.
    And yes, including my ancestor.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,775
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Labour

    Warwick All Saints and Woodloes (Warwick) council by-election result:

    GRN: 34.9% (+22.1)
    REF: 21.8% (+21.8)
    LAB: 19.4% (-24.7)
    CON: 18.6% (-15.7)
    LDEM: 5.3% (-3.5)

    +/- 2023

    Great result for my party

    Who are the Putinists?
    You
    Care to explain your 'thinking' on that? Because your apparent hatred for Zelensky, and the joy you showed yesterday at Trump's betrayal of Ukraine, rather makes you appear like a Putinist shill.

    And therefore a shill for imperialism and fascism,.
    I think the logic is as follows:

    1) Starmer is bad for dissing Jezza.
    2) Starmer supports Zelensky and opposes Putin
    3) therefore Zelensky is bad and Putin is good.

    And the last step in BJO's decent into madness.

    4) Trump sides with Putin therefore Trump is good.

    Complete lunacy from a claimed socialist.
    I must say though that I didn’t foresee the BJO-Leon Pact.
    I’ve barely commented on Putin/Ukraine/Trump

    Merely noted that it is likely ending as I predicted. In a sad Korean style armistice
    I imagine putting a polish on the turd of the Trumpian sell out of Ukraine might defeat even your rhetorical dexterity.
    Is it a sell-out? We just don’t know yet. Trump is a blundering asshole a lot of the time - but quite often he is astute and clever. Eg are the Germans still laughing at him as in the UN, when he told them not to rely on Putin’s gas and Nordstream?

    The American turning away from NATO has been a long time coming. Anyone acting surprised is a twit. Europe is rich and big enough to defend itself, and should do so - a lot of Americans way beyond Trump believe this and they’re right
    So far it's a contradictory shambles, but I'd say the percentages are for a sell out. Trump phoning Putin first (before Zelensky) was a pretty big red flag imo.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,169

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    Worth remembering as far as pensions go that when the National Assistance Act 1948 which established the modern State Pension was passed, average male life expectency was 64.8 years. It was no accident that the pension age was set at 65.
    It's also worth remembering that employers are reluctant to employ applicants over the age of 50 or so. Once an older person loses a job, it's much more likely they will for all practical purposes be viewed as unemployable. So it may boil down to a choice between paying benefits as pension or as unemployment.

    Good morning, everybody.
    We treat age as far too decisive, since it varies so much between individuals. This gloomy thread partly overlooks the improvements in health over time, to the point that the average 65-year-old is perfectly capable of working longer. I got another job without too much trouble after losing my seat at age 60, and have only just more or less definitely retired at 75. Certainly maintaining pensions at 65 (or even younger) makes little sense in general - rather, we should encourage people to look at their own individual conditions, with an incentive to carry on working to age 70 or so if there's little physical reason not to.
    It is possible to get a higher state pension by delaying claiming it.

    https://www.gov.uk/deferring-state-pension/what-you-get

    For many people working on and deferring the State pension is a good option. My Secretary does, and in large part because she enjoys the social contact that comes through working.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 519
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    It’s deranged
    are you suggesting that there is any tact or tast involved in the trumpist style of politics that should be catered to?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,914
    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    Good.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,829
    edited February 14

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    Worth remembering as far as pensions go that when the National Assistance Act 1948 which established the modern State Pension was passed, average male life expectency was 64.8 years. It was no accident that the pension age was set at 65.
    Bismarck has entered the chat.

    The state pension is effectively an asset worth £250k per person.
    Or effectively, a liability of £250k per person.
    It would be good if people could be informed of how much tax they had paid during their lives compared with how much benefits and pensions they had received.

    It might reduce some of the 'I paid my stamp' whining of people who clearly paid in less than they received.
    You can look up how much employee NI you've paid in trivially.

    https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-your-state-pension/account/nirecord
    £47,105.92 for me since leaving school.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,431
    It is self evident that a 'long term economic plan' is one which isn't new and doesn't change except for occasional little touches on the tiller. The concept is wholly inimical to the ludicrous rhetoric of our system.

    Instead of constantly pretending we are at 'Year Nought' and pretending to renew the ship of Theseus during storms in the high seas, a sane government would explain its plan for the next 20 years as a coherent development from how the post WW II world has gone so far, with its many improvements and new opportunities.

    The sheer superficiality of the public discussion is dire.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,946

    Jonathan said:

    The big question for Tories flirting with Trumpian chaos and pacts with Reform, is whether they fundamentally believe in the system they (largely) created or not.

    Free Trade
    Rule of Law and fair contracts
    Separation of power/ limited executive
    International institutions and law

    Or are they revolutionaries and if they are, what do they want instead.

    Closed borders and Tariffs
    Corruption
    Powerful executive above the law
    Big state power

    Is that it?

    The answer then is for Labour to offer a better alternative rather than the utter mess they have made to date

    As for Wales Labour have been in power for too long
    Wales could do with pluralism, but it’s tragic for Wales that Reform appears to be the alternative. God help you. At lest you have Rugby to take your mind off it.

    Meanwhile, it’s mind boggling that Tories appear to have given up already.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,169
    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    It's not really up to Starmer though is it?

    If the US vetos Ukraine joining then it doesnt happen.

    Personally I don't see how Ukraine joins before it's borders are resolved.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,914
    A number of PBers are now halfway down the rabbit hole.

    They ought to heed the fate of former Poster of the Year, Plato.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,955
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    It's not really up to Starmer though is it?

    If the US vetos Ukraine joining then it doesnt happen.

    Personally I don't see how Ukraine joins before it's borders are resolved.
    It likely doesn’t happen while trump is in power
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,946
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
    Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.

    Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.

    Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The big question for Tories flirting with Trumpian chaos and pacts with Reform, is whether they fundamentally believe in the system they (largely) created or not.

    Free Trade
    Rule of Law and fair contracts
    Separation of power/ limited executive
    International institutions and law

    Or are they revolutionaries and if they are, what do they want instead.

    Closed borders and Tariffs
    Corruption
    Powerful executive above the law
    Big state power

    Is that it?

    The answer then is for Labour to offer a better alternative rather than the utter mess they have made to date

    As for Wales Labour have been in power for too long
    Wales could do with pluralism, but it’s tragic for Wales that Reform appears to be the alternative. God help you. At lest you have Rugby to take your mind off it.

    Meanwhile, it’s mind boggling that Tories appear to have given up already.
    Actually I am not a rugby fan, and I have not given up on the conservatives as I will vote for our conservative Senedd member in 26
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    Some forget the Boris/Farage pact where Brexit candidates stood aside in Tory seats in 2019.

    Some hide it in order to pretend the Conservative landslide proves either that Boris was the greatest electoral asset since Walpole, or that Corbyn was electoral poison.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    It’s deranged
    are you suggesting that there is any tact or tast involved in the trumpist style of politics that should be catered to?
    Er, yeah?

    I approve 100% of all his anti-woke orders. I approve in his destruction of DEI. I approve of his banning of trans men from women’s sports. I approve of his hard action at the US border. I approve of his mass deportations. I approve of him telling Europe to shape up and stop sponging

    Do I need to go on?

    A large number of PBers find it impossible to comprehend that anyone can hold firm right wing opinions and REALLY believe them
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,066
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    BJO and the revolutionary left/right/whatever tie themselves up in knots.

    They want to undermine the status quo to achieve their revolutionary goals. Any defeat for the status quo is good news for them. So they end up with strange bedfellows like Putin. Against aggression today, but for it tomorrow, just so long as it weakens the status quo.

    This not about peace, quite the opposite. I wish they were honest about it.

    My own view is that pacifism, even when meant sincerely, is ethically bankrupt. It’s a cover for just looking the other way, when innocents suffer.
    Tell that to Jesus.

    There is a very long tradition of ethical pacifism, with as many dilemmas and problems as just war theory (which seems to find cause very readily).

    But BJO is no pacifist. He takes sides, rather than oppose all violence.
    That’s true of BJO.

    But, I see nothing that is ethically good in Gandhi’s assertion that Jews should willingly submit to murder, at the hands of the Nazis.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,946

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The big question for Tories flirting with Trumpian chaos and pacts with Reform, is whether they fundamentally believe in the system they (largely) created or not.

    Free Trade
    Rule of Law and fair contracts
    Separation of power/ limited executive
    International institutions and law

    Or are they revolutionaries and if they are, what do they want instead.

    Closed borders and Tariffs
    Corruption
    Powerful executive above the law
    Big state power

    Is that it?

    The answer then is for Labour to offer a better alternative rather than the utter mess they have made to date

    As for Wales Labour have been in power for too long
    Wales could do with pluralism, but it’s tragic for Wales that Reform appears to be the alternative. God help you. At lest you have Rugby to take your mind off it.

    Meanwhile, it’s mind boggling that Tories appear to have given up already.
    Actually I am not a rugby fan, and I have not given up on the conservatives as I will vote for our conservative Senedd member in 26
    Good for you. Just as well about the rugby. Tories need to be Tories and not be so wet. Thatch would give you all a dressing down.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,604

    From another PB.

    We're told that when Kemi Badenoch orders an English breakfast she makes sure she has a lot of butter. Not for the toast - as you might think - but to butter everything else on the plate.

    Good for her. Butter is very good for you.
    James Martin certainly seems to thing so.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,220
    edited February 14

    I’d like to think that Trump’s current behaviour is making some of our right wingers queasy.

    There are a few signs of that, though it's been a bit .. er .. vivid on PB for a couple of days.

    This is yesterday's Daily T podcast, where they were noticeably less hero-worshipping of Trump than previously.

    They had James Heappey on, who was a Defence Minister in the last three Conservative Governments and - according to Ben Wallace - the most operationally experienced ex-forces MP who, as a Major, is senior enough to have a useful view but not senior enough to turn into a windbag.

    It was notable that even though he was on, he was not questioned about the history of Defence under the Conservatives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjxT-IDO6rE

    OTOH on Wednesday it was "Good performance by Kemi at PMQ", and before that it was Rupert Lowe MP on Tommy Robinson not having been given the credit he deserves, and not challenged effectively on things he gets wrong. So there is plenty of space for it to improve.

    https://youtu.be/s3B39PCYzkk?list=PLJnf_DDTfIVBV8Pt89mSFIFfZBPkWUoB6&t=1675
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,952

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    And the Conservatives are fawning over Trump, who is conceding everything they want to Putin;s Russia.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,049
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The big question for Tories flirting with Trumpian chaos and pacts with Reform, is whether they fundamentally believe in the system they (largely) created or not.

    Free Trade
    Rule of Law and fair contracts
    Separation of power/ limited executive
    International institutions and law

    Or are they revolutionaries and if they are, what do they want instead.

    Closed borders and Tariffs
    Corruption
    Powerful executive above the law
    Big state power

    Is that it?

    The answer then is for Labour to offer a better alternative rather than the utter mess they have made to date

    As for Wales Labour have been in power for too long
    Wales could do with pluralism, but it’s tragic for Wales that Reform appears to be the alternative. God help you. At lest you have Rugby to take your mind off it.

    Meanwhile, it’s mind boggling that Tories appear to have given up already.
    Actually I am not a rugby fan, and I have not given up on the conservatives as I will vote for our conservative Senedd member in 26
    Good for you. Just as well about the rugby. Tories need to be Tories and not be so wet. Thatch would give you all a dressing down.
    The change to the electoral system ensures that there's unlikely to be another single-party administration in Wales for a long time. It's a change which is overdue, although with so many parties in the mix and relatively small constituencies the Senedd could easily go from one extreme (majorities on 35% of the vote) to the other (no majority available across even two parties). But both national polling and such local by-elections as we have both point to a pretty substantial Reform presence. With six members per constituency, you need about 10-12% to get an MS and Reform will manage that comfortably. As things are now, there'd be places they get two (by contrast, there'll be quite a few constituencies where Con miss out, and plenty where the LDs and Greens do).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
    Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.

    Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.

    Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
    No, you’re just terrified of Reform gaining power
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,220
    edited February 14
    Recommended: yesterday's Ukraine the Latest podcast.

    Asking the right questions from having very involved throughout, and they have a good grasp of the historical background. As I think all of us know, for Europe it is about political will not capability, and the question has now been asked forcefully.

    Title: "The End of the West?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGXBBqpHM18
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 74,117

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    "I won't take any lectures.." is a lazy answer beloved of politicians (Starmer included), who are unable to articulate a convincing reply.
    You can pretty well discount the opinion of anyone resorting to it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,398

    TOPPING said:

    Why is no one talking about the most important news of the day?

    Japanese woman arrested for squashing bun in shop.

    Nor is it a euphemism. Sadly.

    People squeezing food to test its freshness ought to be a capital offence, or at least frowned upon. It leaves bruised fruit and dented baked goods, as in this Japanese lady's case, and I am not wholly convinced everyone washes their hands first.

    What is especially stupid is that with sliced bread, they are testing not freshness but how tightly it is packed, and that with fruit, removal of best before dates is to blame. (Often labels do have lightly coded dates on them btw.)
    "I am not wholly convinced everyone washes their hands first."

    Such delicacy of sentiment, like a cherry petal falling into a puddle of rainwater, is entirely appropriate to a conversation over cha-do in Kyoto, and almost completely wasted on PB.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    Fuck yeah!
    It's going to get rather boring.

    It also doesn't convince a single person.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,700
    edited February 14

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    Until the last few months I have been in favour of higher defence spending in the UK and across European governments to stop further Russian aggression. Yes we would need to pay more taxes and it would be economically painful but some things are costly but worthwhile.

    But what is the point of that if Farage is odds on to be prime minister in the next decade? He will just unravel it all. So we will have the hardship and sacrifice but no lasting deterrent. It makes zero sense to commit vast extra resources that are only valuable long term if there is political consensus amongst likely future governments.

    Farage on Russian aggression "Poking a bear is obviously not a good foreign policy"
    Farage on Putin "The leader I admire most in the world"
    Farage on Ukraine war "We provoked this war"
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,775
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    Which is all well and good but unless the European powers are willing to fully step up to the mark and replace all of the current US support so that Trump loses his whip hand it is an empty gesture. We cannot do this alone and I hope we are speaking urgently to France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic states together with anyone else who is willing to help.

    We need to be in a position to tell Trump to piss off but words alone or modest additional quantities of armaments will not do it.
    I'm most heartened at how quickly the 'We must escape the EU before they impose a European army upon us' meme has evolved to 'Bloody EU dragging their heels on a European army'.
    Let's hope rides 2 horse Starmer quickly decides which dobbin might be dependable and of some utility.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    "I won't take any lectures.." is a lazy answer beloved of politicians (Starmer included), who are unable to articulate a convincing reply.
    You can pretty well discount the opinion of anyone resorting to it.
    I'll take that with a pinch of salt coming from a man who's dropped the f-bomb this morning on people he politically disagrees with.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 74,117
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    Which is all well and good but unless the European powers are willing to fully step up to the mark and replace all of the current US support so that Trump loses his whip hand it is an empty gesture. We cannot do this alone and I hope we are speaking urgently to France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic states together with anyone else who is willing to help.

    We need to be in a position to tell Trump to piss off but words alone or modest additional quantities of armaments will not do it.
    Interesting thread, of which this is the partial conclusion:

    https://x.com/samagreene/status/1890173033048076626
    ...Europe and Kyiv thus have the opportunity to force their terms on Moscow and Washington, by designing and deploying a force that would create genuine deterrence against further Russian aggression...

    That is, of course, begging the question of whether we and any willing partners have the capacity to create and deploy such a force in the limited time which is likely available, but it would at least not require a complete break with the US, as it would simply short circuit the argument.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
    Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.

    Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.

    Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
    No, you’re just terrified of Reform gaining power
    No, he wants Labour to win again.

    He's trying to keep Tories in the Tory camp so the vote remains split, and without a deal.

    Interests.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    Until the last few months I have been in favour of higher defence spending in the UK and across European governments to stop further Russian aggression. Yes we would need to pay more taxes and it would be economically painful but somethings are costly but worthwhile.

    But what is the point of that if Farage is odds on to be prime minister in the next decade? He will just unravel it all. So we will have the hardship and sacrifice but no lasting deterrent. It makes zero sense to commit vast extra resources that are only valuable long term if there is not political consensus amongst likely future governments.

    Farage on Russian aggression "Poking a bear is obviously not a good foreign policy"
    Farage on Putin "The leader I admire most in the world"
    Farage on Ukraine war "We provoked this war"
    I am not supporting Farage and nor am I a Reform voter.

    I am saying I think a deal will need to be done.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 756
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    BJO and the revolutionary left/right/whatever tie themselves up in knots.

    They want to undermine the status quo to achieve their revolutionary goals. Any defeat for the status quo is good news for them. So they end up with strange bedfellows like Putin. Against aggression today, but for it tomorrow, just so long as it weakens the status quo.

    This not about peace, quite the opposite. I wish they were honest about it.

    My own view is that pacifism, even when meant sincerely, is ethically bankrupt. It’s a cover for just looking the other way, when innocents suffer.
    Tell that to Jesus.

    There is a very long tradition of ethical pacifism, with as many dilemmas and problems as just war theory (which seems to find cause very readily).

    But BJO is no pacifist. He takes sides, rather than oppose all violence.
    That’s true of BJO.

    But, I see nothing that is ethically good in Gandhi’s assertion that Jews should willingly submit to murder, at the hands of the Nazis.
    It's also a simplification of Christian doctrine. Archbishop Fisher once replied to an intervention by Philip Toynbee who argued that nuclear war was so terrible that we should immediately sue for peace with Russia:

    "I am convinced that it is never right to settle any policy simply out of fear of the consequences . . . For all I know it is within the providence of God that the human race should destroy itself in this manner"
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    ClippP said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    And the Conservatives are fawning over Trump, who is conceding everything they want to Putin;s Russia.
    Do you feel a sense of relief in your colon after having let out a good fart?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The big question for Tories flirting with Trumpian chaos and pacts with Reform, is whether they fundamentally believe in the system they (largely) created or not.

    Free Trade
    Rule of Law and fair contracts
    Separation of power/ limited executive
    International institutions and law

    Or are they revolutionaries and if they are, what do they want instead.

    Closed borders and Tariffs
    Corruption
    Powerful executive above the law
    Big state power

    Is that it?

    The answer then is for Labour to offer a better alternative rather than the utter mess they have made to date

    As for Wales Labour have been in power for too long
    Wales could do with pluralism, but it’s tragic for Wales that Reform appears to be the alternative. God help you. At lest you have Rugby to take your mind off it.

    Meanwhile, it’s mind boggling that Tories appear to have given up already.
    Actually I am not a rugby fan, and I have not given up on the conservatives as I will vote for our conservative Senedd member in 26
    Good for you. Just as well about the rugby. Tories need to be Tories and not be so wet. Thatch would give you all a dressing down.
    You don't know the first thing about Margaret Thatcher.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    BJO and the revolutionary left/right/whatever tie themselves up in knots.

    They want to undermine the status quo to achieve their revolutionary goals. Any defeat for the status quo is good news for them. So they end up with strange bedfellows like Putin. Against aggression today, but for it tomorrow, just so long as it weakens the status quo.

    This not about peace, quite the opposite. I wish they were honest about it.

    My own view is that pacifism, even when meant sincerely, is ethically bankrupt. It’s a cover for just looking the other way, when innocents suffer.
    Tell that to Jesus.

    There is a very long tradition of ethical pacifism, with as many dilemmas and problems as just war theory (which seems to find cause very readily).

    But BJO is no pacifist. He takes sides, rather than oppose all violence.
    That’s true of BJO.

    But, I see nothing that is ethically good in Gandhi’s assertion that Jews should willingly submit to murder, at the hands of the Nazis.
    Gandhi's baseline was that shame would work, but it only worked on the British and he'd been brought up and trained in British universities and its legal system.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,775
    edited February 14

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    Fuck yeah!
    It's going to get rather boring.

    It also doesn't convince a single person.
    No one has ever been persuaded of anything by posts on PB. Some might have changed their minds by the force of events and circumstance, or gone a bit quiet about uncomfortable stuff, eg pre SMO Putin is the defender of western values.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,700

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    Until the last few months I have been in favour of higher defence spending in the UK and across European governments to stop further Russian aggression. Yes we would need to pay more taxes and it would be economically painful but somethings are costly but worthwhile.

    But what is the point of that if Farage is odds on to be prime minister in the next decade? He will just unravel it all. So we will have the hardship and sacrifice but no lasting deterrent. It makes zero sense to commit vast extra resources that are only valuable long term if there is not political consensus amongst likely future governments.

    Farage on Russian aggression "Poking a bear is obviously not a good foreign policy"
    Farage on Putin "The leader I admire most in the world"
    Farage on Ukraine war "We provoked this war"
    I am not supporting Farage and nor am I a Reform voter.

    I am saying I think a deal will need to be done.
    No-one will be willing to commit massive funds to defence against Russia if the main party of the right is led by a Russia fan. It just makes no sense.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
    Yep.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,902
    Nigelb said:

    Hegseth was probably on the sauce for this one:

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not rule out providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine, but such a decision will ultimately depend on U.S. President Donald Trump, he said in an interview with Breitbart News.
    https://x.com/Hromadske/status/1890332656002351223

    That's an effective negotiating threat to pressure Putin to accept Western security guarantees for Ukraine.

    Vlad - either you accept security guarantees so you can't take another bite of Ukraine in the future, or we provide them with nukes. Which do you prefer?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,528

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    Which is all well and good but unless the European powers are willing to fully step up to the mark and replace all of the current US support so that Trump loses his whip hand it is an empty gesture. We cannot do this alone and I hope we are speaking urgently to France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic states together with anyone else who is willing to help.

    We need to be in a position to tell Trump to piss off but words alone or modest additional quantities of armaments will not do it.
    I'm most heartened at how quickly the 'We must escape the EU before they impose a European army upon us' meme has evolved to 'Bloody EU dragging their heels on a European army'.
    Let's hope rides 2 horse Starmer quickly decides which dobbin might be dependable and of some utility.
    I have never had a problem of cooperating with the EU or other European countries bilaterally on defence matters whether we were in the EU or out of it. My many problems with the EU did not include defence cooperation. Until now that defence cooperation was probably done through the aegis of NATO because we were so dependent upon US support but NATO has, unfortunately, pretty much ceased to exist in the last week and we need alternatives.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,829
    edited February 14
    Stonking result for the Tories in the New forest.

    🌳 CON: 60.0% (+32.5)
    🌍 GRN: 18.9% (-11.9)
    ➡️ RFM: 15.5% (New)
    🔶 LDM: 3.1% (New)
    🌹 LAB: 2.5% (-5.1)

    Gain from the Greens.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,946
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
    Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.

    Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.

    Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
    No, you’re just terrified of Reform gaining power
    Nah. I expect Labour to beat Reform if it came down to that.

    Meanwhile But do believe that conservativism and reform are different things. There is space for a Thatcher /Reagan party which is vastly different to Reform.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,811
    edited February 14
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    It's not really up to Starmer though is it?

    If the US vetos Ukraine joining then it doesnt happen.

    Personally I don't see how Ukraine joins before it's borders are resolved.
    Reform NATO on the same basis as before but without the US.

    With the inclusion of Canada and Iceland it would still be North Atlantic and if the US wanted to reapply once they have learnt some sanity then they could do so.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,108

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The big question for Tories flirting with Trumpian chaos and pacts with Reform, is whether they fundamentally believe in the system they (largely) created or not.

    Free Trade
    Rule of Law and fair contracts
    Separation of power/ limited executive
    International institutions and law

    Or are they revolutionaries and if they are, what do they want instead.

    Closed borders and Tariffs
    Corruption
    Powerful executive above the law
    Big state power

    Is that it?

    The answer then is for Labour to offer a better alternative rather than the utter mess they have made to date

    As for Wales Labour have been in power for too long
    Wales could do with pluralism, but it’s tragic for Wales that Reform appears to be the alternative. God help you. At lest you have Rugby to take your mind off it.

    Meanwhile, it’s mind boggling that Tories appear to have given up already.
    Actually I am not a rugby fan, and I have not given up on the conservatives as I will vote for our conservative Senedd member in 26
    Good for you. Just as well about the rugby. Tories need to be Tories and not be so wet. Thatch would give you all a dressing down.
    The change to the electoral system ensures that there's unlikely to be another single-party administration in Wales for a long time. It's a change which is overdue, although with so many parties in the mix and relatively small constituencies the Senedd could easily go from one extreme (majorities on 35% of the vote) to the other (no majority available across even two parties). But both national polling and such local by-elections as we have both point to a pretty substantial Reform presence. With six members per constituency, you need about 10-12% to get an MS and Reform will manage that comfortably. As things are now, there'd be places they get two (by contrast, there'll be quite a few constituencies where Con miss out, and plenty where the LDs and Greens do).
    I suspect there'll be a substantial Plaid Cymru showing, too. Could easily be three 'big' parties in the Senedd and another three smaller ones. Plus, an Independent or two.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,431
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    It’s deranged
    are you suggesting that there is any tact or tast involved in the trumpist style of politics that should be catered to?
    Er, yeah?

    I approve 100% of all his anti-woke orders. I approve in his destruction of DEI. I approve of his banning of trans men from women’s sports. I approve of his hard action at the US border. I approve of his mass deportations. I approve of him telling Europe to shape up and stop sponging

    Do I need to go on?

    A large number of PBers find it impossible to comprehend that anyone can hold firm right wing opinions and REALLY believe them
    Fair point, but 'right wing' covers multitudes including contradictions. Is 'right wing' pro big global corporations influencing and instructing government, or is 'right wing' more Poujadist. Is it for Burke, or is it for Trumpism. Is it for traditional culture and careful induction into it through the education system or is it fundamentally for free market philistinism? They are not the same. And so on.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,648
    @thetimes

    🔺NEW: US is prepared to deploy troops and impose sanctions if Russia refuses to abandon its invasion of Ukraine, JD Vance says

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1890345696454156582
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    Yes, and I've said I'd like Hunt as leader. But the ground has shifted, and you know I'm right too.

    I'm just recognising the realities of electoral coalitions.

    Politicians have their preferences and their beliefs, and then they do deals.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,384
    Nigelb said:

    Hegseth was probably on the sauce for this one:

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not rule out providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine, but such a decision will ultimately depend on U.S. President Donald Trump, he said in an interview with Breitbart News.
    https://x.com/Hromadske/status/1890332656002351223

    Giving Ukraine nukes. Isn't that effectively, like, giving them NATO membership?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,220
    edited February 14
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    Which is all well and good but unless the European powers are willing to fully step up to the mark and replace all of the current US support so that Trump loses his whip hand it is an empty gesture. We cannot do this alone and I hope we are speaking urgently to France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic states together with anyone else who is willing to help.

    We need to be in a position to tell Trump to piss off but words alone or modest additional quantities of armaments will not do it.
    Since the UK is chairing the contact group the USA having exited pursued by a bear, I think we can be sure that that is happening.

    I'd say that if Europe is to be in a position to say that Ukraine stays as a sovereign, unified country in the long term (unless it chooses not to, which won't happen because it knows what happens to people in Russia-occupied Ukraine) it will be about something like building on the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) to include a wider selection of countries beyond the 12, and create a European alliance structure parallel to NATO doing similar things without the USA, including Ukraine.

    I have no idea whether that could work in practice.

    It's all about the political will to use the capability that exists, and develop more capability.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,700
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    It’s deranged
    are you suggesting that there is any tact or tast involved in the trumpist style of politics that should be catered to?
    Er, yeah?

    I approve 100% of all his anti-woke orders. I approve in his destruction of DEI. I approve of his banning of trans men from women’s sports. I approve of his hard action at the US border. I approve of his mass deportations. I approve of him telling Europe to shape up and stop sponging

    Do I need to go on?

    A large number of PBers find it impossible to comprehend that anyone can hold firm right wing opinions and REALLY believe them
    Fair point, but 'right wing' covers multitudes including contradictions. Is 'right wing' pro big global corporations influencing and instructing government, or is 'right wing' more Poujadist. Is it for Burke, or is it for Trumpism. Is it for traditional culture and careful induction into it through the education system or is it fundamentally for free market philistinism? They are not the same. And so on.
    Over time it is what they read in the Mail, Telegraph and whatever tweets Musk decides to show them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    Until the last few months I have been in favour of higher defence spending in the UK and across European governments to stop further Russian aggression. Yes we would need to pay more taxes and it would be economically painful but somethings are costly but worthwhile.

    But what is the point of that if Farage is odds on to be prime minister in the next decade? He will just unravel it all. So we will have the hardship and sacrifice but no lasting deterrent. It makes zero sense to commit vast extra resources that are only valuable long term if there is not political consensus amongst likely future governments.

    Farage on Russian aggression "Poking a bear is obviously not a good foreign policy"
    Farage on Putin "The leader I admire most in the world"
    Farage on Ukraine war "We provoked this war"
    I am not supporting Farage and nor am I a Reform voter.

    I am saying I think a deal will need to be done.
    No-one will be willing to commit massive funds to defence against Russia if the main party of the right is led by a Russia fan. It just makes no sense.
    A condition of the deal needs to be that Farage and Reform take our defence and foreign interests seriously.

    That would be a red line for me.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,861

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    Fuck yeah!
    It's going to get rather boring.

    It also doesn't convince a single person.
    No one has ever been persuaded of anything by posts on PB. Some might have changed their minds by the force of events and circumstance, or gone a bit quiet about uncomfortable stuff, eg pre SMO Putin is the defender of western values.
    I don't think that's true.

    We just do it very slowly and, due to pride, rarely admit it when we have.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,775
    edited February 14
    Scott_xP said:

    @thetimes

    🔺NEW: US is prepared to deploy troops and impose sanctions if Russia refuses to abandon its invasion of Ukraine, JD Vance says

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1890345696454156582

    Bloody* hell, I didn't expect expect the 'Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia' stuff to happen over night.

    *I was going to use 'Fucking' but then thought of Casino's delicate sensibilties.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,282
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.

    The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.

    This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.

    Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades

    Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
    Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.

    My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.

    Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
    This was also before we started shortening people's working lives by bundling everyone off to uni. These days, to be a electrical/mechanical engineer, rather than learn on the job from 14, you've probably done a masters, so entering the workforce at 22/23. That would give a working life of ~32 years, out of a lifespan of 81 - so 59% of his total life spent out of the workforce.

    Even with retirement at 67, with a uni degree, that's only 44 years of working life, so 46% of his life out of the workforce.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,700

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    Until the last few months I have been in favour of higher defence spending in the UK and across European governments to stop further Russian aggression. Yes we would need to pay more taxes and it would be economically painful but somethings are costly but worthwhile.

    But what is the point of that if Farage is odds on to be prime minister in the next decade? He will just unravel it all. So we will have the hardship and sacrifice but no lasting deterrent. It makes zero sense to commit vast extra resources that are only valuable long term if there is not political consensus amongst likely future governments.

    Farage on Russian aggression "Poking a bear is obviously not a good foreign policy"
    Farage on Putin "The leader I admire most in the world"
    Farage on Ukraine war "We provoked this war"
    I am not supporting Farage and nor am I a Reform voter.

    I am saying I think a deal will need to be done.
    No-one will be willing to commit massive funds to defence against Russia if the main party of the right is led by a Russia fan. It just makes no sense.
    A condition of the deal needs to be that Farage and Reform take our defence and foreign interests seriously.

    That would be a red line for me.
    Maybe Badenoch could get Farage to sign a piece of paper.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,091
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    It's not really up to Starmer though is it?

    If the US vetos Ukraine joining then it doesnt happen.

    Personally I don't see how Ukraine joins before it's borders are resolved.
    Trump won't be in power for ever. Putin won't be in power for ever.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,049

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    Until the last few months I have been in favour of higher defence spending in the UK and across European governments to stop further Russian aggression. Yes we would need to pay more taxes and it would be economically painful but somethings are costly but worthwhile.

    But what is the point of that if Farage is odds on to be prime minister in the next decade? He will just unravel it all. So we will have the hardship and sacrifice but no lasting deterrent. It makes zero sense to commit vast extra resources that are only valuable long term if there is not political consensus amongst likely future governments.

    Farage on Russian aggression "Poking a bear is obviously not a good foreign policy"
    Farage on Putin "The leader I admire most in the world"
    Farage on Ukraine war "We provoked this war"
    I am not supporting Farage and nor am I a Reform voter.

    I am saying I think a deal will need to be done.
    No-one will be willing to commit massive funds to defence against Russia if the main party of the right is led by a Russia fan. It just makes no sense.
    A condition of the deal needs to be that Farage and Reform take our defence and foreign interests seriously.

    That would be a red line for me.
    Why on earth would he change the habits of a lifetime? Farage has done more to damage Britain's international position than anyone in the last 50 years. You might as well trust Trump to honour a deal because he's signed a piece of paper.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,613
    edited February 14
    JohnO said:

    The Conservatives lost over 60 seats to the LibDems, including 6 here in leafy Surrey (12,000 majority in my constituency). I’m struggling to see how a pact with Reform will entice those defectors back into the blue fold.

    On some of the latest polls Conservatives and Reform combined would have an overall majority anyway, or close to it with the DUP and TUV, even if the LDs retained all their seats in Surrey.

    Brexit has changed the narrative, so Reform winning Labour redwall seats and Conservatives soft Leave seats from Labour means Remain seats can stay LD or Labour and still not certain of Starmer staying PM
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,829

    Scott_xP said:

    @thetimes

    🔺NEW: US is prepared to deploy troops and impose sanctions if Russia refuses to abandon its invasion of Ukraine, JD Vance says

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1890345696454156582

    They're all over the place. Is there actually any vague plan in place, or are people just saying whatever comes into their head at any one time?
    He's talked to Zelenskyy last hasn't he whereas Trump spoke to Putin previously.

    Is this a case of (Boris was a horrendous offender for this) saying what the last person you spoke to would like to hear ?
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,183
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    Which is all well and good but unless the European powers are willing to fully step up to the mark and replace all of the current US support so that Trump loses his whip hand it is an empty gesture. We cannot do this alone and I hope we are speaking urgently to France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic states together with anyone else who is willing to help.

    We need to be in a position to tell Trump to piss off but words alone or modest additional quantities of armaments will not do it.
    I agree, but - we shouldn't understate what Europe is already providing. Total aid already exceeds what the US provides.

    But you're right. If Europe just says "we will double aid - focussed on military aid", then Trump's leverage is removed. It helps that Biden gave a large amount of support at the end of his term, so we're not at a "cliff-edge" where Ukraine is running out in the coming weeks.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
    Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.

    Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.

    Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
    No, you’re just terrified of Reform gaining power
    No, he wants Labour to win again.

    He's trying to keep Tories in the Tory camp so the vote remains split, and without a deal.

    Interests.
    Both, I think
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,775

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    Fuck yeah!
    It's going to get rather boring.

    It also doesn't convince a single person.
    No one has ever been persuaded of anything by posts on PB. Some might have changed their minds by the force of events and circumstance, or gone a bit quiet about uncomfortable stuff, eg pre SMO Putin is the defender of western values.
    I don't think that's true.

    We just do it very slowly and, due to pride, rarely admit it when we have.
    Ok, if pride will allow you what have you changed your mind on and which poster was responsible?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,607
    JohnO said:

    The Conservatives lost over 60 seats to the LibDems, including 6 here in leafy Surrey (12,000 majority in my constituency). I’m struggling to see how a pact with Reform will entice those defectors back into the blue fold.

    Ditto here in South Cambridgeshire / St Neots constituencies. Once true blue.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,941
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hegseth was probably on the sauce for this one:

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not rule out providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine, but such a decision will ultimately depend on U.S. President Donald Trump, he said in an interview with Breitbart News.
    https://x.com/Hromadske/status/1890332656002351223

    Giving Ukraine nukes. Isn't that effectively, like, giving them NATO membership?
    No, it isn't.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,613
    Scott_xP said:

    @thetimes

    🔺NEW: US is prepared to deploy troops and impose sanctions if Russia refuses to abandon its invasion of Ukraine, JD Vance says

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1890345696454156582

    Vance is more of a traditional Republican than Trump on foreign policy which is something as he is next in line for the GOP
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436

    Scott_xP said:

    @thetimes

    🔺NEW: US is prepared to deploy troops and impose sanctions if Russia refuses to abandon its invasion of Ukraine, JD Vance says

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1890345696454156582

    They're all over the place. Is there actually any vague plan in place, or are people just saying whatever comes into their head at any one time?
    Or is this not their plan as stated from the off? Offer peace but do it with menaces?

    Or maybe they are adopting the madman theory of politics?

    Or of course the entire admin is a vortex of Muskite chaos and strife
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,569

    Scott_xP said:

    @thetimes

    🔺NEW: US is prepared to deploy troops and impose sanctions if Russia refuses to abandon its invasion of Ukraine, JD Vance says

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1890345696454156582

    They're all over the place. Is there actually any vague plan in place, or are people just saying whatever comes into their head at any one time?
    Unlike Trump, maybe the Russians don't have dirt on Vance?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,902
    edited February 14

    Scott_xP said:

    @thetimes

    🔺NEW: US is prepared to deploy troops and impose sanctions if Russia refuses to abandon its invasion of Ukraine, JD Vance says

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1890345696454156582

    They're all over the place. Is there actually any vague plan in place, or are people just saying whatever comes into their head at any one time?
    I like to think it is deliberate confusion combined with Nixon's doctrine of irrationality. Very effective in a negotiation.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,641

    JohnO said:

    The Conservatives lost over 60 seats to the LibDems, including 6 here in leafy Surrey (12,000 majority in my constituency). I’m struggling to see how a pact with Reform will entice those defectors back into the blue fold.

    Ditto here in South Cambridgeshire / St Neots constituencies. Once true blue.
    The Tories aren't going to win those types of seat back.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,613
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    The Conservatives lost over 60 seats to the LibDems, including 6 here in leafy Surrey (12,000 majority in my constituency). I’m struggling to see how a pact with Reform will entice those defectors back into the blue fold.

    On some of the latest polls Conservatives and Reform combined would have an overall majority anyway, or close to it with the DUP and TUV, even if the LDs retained all their seats in Surrey.

    Brexit has changed the narrative, so Reform winning Labour redwall seats and Conservatives soft Leave seats from Labour means Remain seats can stay LD or Labour and still not certain of Starmer staying PM
    The Conservatives need to win back LD seats for an overall majority but even if they did they would probably be short without also regaining some Labour marginal seats heading Reform
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,946
    edited February 14
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
    Why do you find that astonishing?

    I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
    Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
    The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
    Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.

    Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.

    Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
    No, you’re just terrified of Reform gaining power
    No, he wants Labour to win again.

    He's trying to keep Tories in the Tory camp so the vote remains split, and without a deal.

    Interests.
    Both, I think
    Labour will probably win in 28/29, but one day will lose to someone. The question is who.

    Personally I prefer a Tory party led by Hunt committed to free trade, sound money, nato and the rule of law rather than a Trumpian lite armchair revolutionary Reform. The Tories were lost the moment Boris said “Fuck Business”.

    I just don’t understand why the Tories are giving up on the recipe that gave them success. It’s bizarre. A Tory party led well pursuing a Thatcherite agenda would be a breath of fresh air and defeat Reform.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,436
    Barnesian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hegseth was probably on the sauce for this one:

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not rule out providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine, but such a decision will ultimately depend on U.S. President Donald Trump, he said in an interview with Breitbart News.
    https://x.com/Hromadske/status/1890332656002351223

    That's an effective negotiating threat to pressure Putin to accept Western security guarantees for Ukraine.

    Vlad - either you accept security guarantees so you can't take another bite of Ukraine in the future, or we provide them with nukes. Which do you prefer?
    There could be room for maneuver here

    Britain should offer a new binding defence pact with willing EU members, but in return we want much better access to the single market
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,091
    ClippP said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    Pro_Rata said:

    For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%

    You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.

    Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
    I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.

    I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
    Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
    Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
    So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
    You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.

    The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.

    I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
    And the Conservatives are fawning over Trump, who is conceding everything they want to Putin;s Russia.
    And you know this how? You know what Trump said to Putin? You know what the plan is? Perhaps you can tells us all.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,066

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    Fuck yeah!
    It's going to get rather boring.

    It also doesn't convince a single person.
    No one has ever been persuaded of anything by posts on PB. Some might have changed their minds by the force of events and circumstance, or gone a bit quiet about uncomfortable stuff, eg pre SMO Putin is the defender of western values.
    I don't think that's true.

    We just do it very slowly and, due to pride, rarely admit it when we have.
    It's also a fact that people are rarely given credit for changing their minds. Usually, they're criticised for not converting sooner, or assumed to have some ulterior motive for changing their viewpoint.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,353
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    It’s deranged
    are you suggesting that there is any tact or tast involved in the trumpist style of politics that should be catered to?
    Er, yeah?

    I approve 100% of all his anti-woke orders. I approve in his destruction of DEI. I approve of his banning of trans men from women’s sports. I approve of his hard action at the US border. I approve of his mass deportations. I approve of him telling Europe to shape up and stop sponging

    Do I need to go on?

    A large number of PBers find it impossible to comprehend that anyone can hold firm right wing opinions and REALLY believe them
    Tl;dr?

    You approve (as do I) of him doing what he said he was going to do.

    Ofc he has done some off-book stuff as well but that's also prob what people voted for.

    Now, as for that stuff, seemingly much of it is absolutely bonkers, but there's democracy for you.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,641

    Nigelb said:

    Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins.
    You voted for this shit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/
    ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate.
    “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..

    It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.

    Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
    Fuck yeah!
    It's going to get rather boring.

    It also doesn't convince a single person.
    No one has ever been persuaded of anything by posts on PB. Some might have changed their minds by the force of events and circumstance, or gone a bit quiet about uncomfortable stuff, eg pre SMO Putin is the defender of western values.
    Yes they do. People change their mind quite often on PB because of the posts they read. It happened the other day with someone.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,091

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @benrileysmith

    Keir Starmer tells Zelensky that Ukraine **will** one day join Nato, despite Trump’s defence sec ruling it out this week.

    Also appears to call for extra weapons for Ukraine (“further lethal aid”).

    Readout of their call below. Very much not the Trump admin’s position.

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1890337756464689222

    Which is all well and good but unless the European powers are willing to fully step up to the mark and replace all of the current US support so that Trump loses his whip hand it is an empty gesture. We cannot do this alone and I hope we are speaking urgently to France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic states together with anyone else who is willing to help.

    We need to be in a position to tell Trump to piss off but words alone or modest additional quantities of armaments will not do it.
    I'm most heartened at how quickly the 'We must escape the EU before they impose a European army upon us' meme has evolved to 'Bloody EU dragging their heels on a European army'.
    Let's hope rides 2 horse Starmer quickly decides which dobbin might be dependable and of some utility.
    Who mentioned a European Army? Why not a grand coalition as per 1944-45?
Sign In or Register to comment.