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.
You mean when @TSE finally saw the light about p*n**ppl* on *****?
Russia gets to keep Crimea. Ukraine and UNSC recognise Crimea as Russian. Ukraine gets the other lands back, but some referendums are planned for some future point for those regions. Referendums result in these regions staying Ukranian. NATO issue is fudged in the deal. Ukraine is not banned from joining but never actually joins - or not in the medium term anyway.
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.
The most recent polling still has the Tories as a 'big' party in terms of Senedd prospects. The only three Senedd polls since the summer have all of Lab/Ref/Con/Pld in a 17-29% range (and, excluding Lab, a 17-24% range - although Labour's latest landed in that lower one too).
Having dominated the Assembly / Senedd for 26 years, it'll be a hell of a culture shock for Labour to wind up with less than a quarter of the seats.
We could well end up with a result where the Tories are the king-makers.
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.
Yes they will, when them staying LibDem secure a hated Labour Party back in place.
Ditto voting Reform and splitting the vote. A horribly mixed up House of Commons with multiple rainbow coalition options does not remove Labour from power. And that will top trump the Tories having been crap last time out.
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.
Our current army would struggle to keep 5k men in the field indefinitely. (We used to have more than 20K in NI alone) I doubt many European countries other than France and Poland could match that. But the force is a trip wire, not a battle ready defence so it should be doable if we are willing to commit.
To a certain extent Trump is right. Europe has to deal with its own defence: why should this be an American problem? But I suspect he will find the price of giving up leadership higher than he expects.
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.
Russia gets to keep Crimea. Ukraine and UNSC recognise Crimea as Russian. Ukraine gets the other lands back, but some referendums are planned for some future point for those regions. Referendums result in these regions staying Ukranian. NATO issue is fudged in the deal. Ukraine is not banned from joining but never actually joins - or not in the medium term anyway.
Anyone else?
Perhaps not the most important aspect of this, but I wonder what will happen regarding Russia and it's participation in sporting and cultural things. My view is, unless Russia withdraws from Ukraine entirely, they shouldn't be allowed back into UEFA.
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.
Farage is not Trump, and no he hasn't. Remember: I supported (and still do support) Brexit.
The hyperbolic arguments you and your liberal ilk are putting forward this morning are having the opposite effect to what you intend; they're driving me towards supporting a deal, not away.
Think again. Unless you actually really want to just feel good and down with your peer group, and welcome the part you can play in driving polarisation.
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.
It happens, but it's a minority activity. Even here, and we're unusual to start with.
Hence political parties put a lot of their effort into geeing up wavering supporters who might otherwise stay on the sofa, rather than converting swing voters.
Or the way that many voters will stick with a political brand long after it has ceased doing what first attracted them.
10.44 GMT Poland is 'the model ally,' Hegseth says praising high defence spending US defence secretary Pete Hegseth opens with praises for Poland:
Our friendship, our bond is ironclad, and we came here specifically to reinforce that. We says he deliberately picked Poland for his first bilateral meeting in Europe to acknowledge Warsaw’s spending on defence as he calls Poland “the model ally.”
I do want to emphasise that it’s quite intentional that our first European bilateral is right here in Poland. The symbol, the symbolism, is not lost. In fact, it is intentional. We see Poland as the model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defence, but in our shared defence and the defence of the continent
Guardian
Trump and the USA are not abandoning NATO. They’re just telling us to stop fecking whining and grandstanding and stand up for ourselves
AND THEY ARE RIGHT
If we start pulling our weight then NATO will endure
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.
We see it on here.
People are regularly held accountable for having "got it wrong" or "called it wrong" when they fail to correctly predict the future; the opposite is also true with those that get it right being called sages and legends.
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.
Then they will never form a majority government.
Never is a long time. I remember people saying Labour would never win another election not that long ago. The electorate is uniquely volatile and disaligned from party identification. This is not a particularly good thing - stability and institutional memory matters and too much disalignment is almost as bad as too much partisanship - but it is where we are.
Russia gets to keep Crimea. Ukraine and UNSC recognise Crimea as Russian. Ukraine gets the other lands back, but some referendums are planned for some future point for those regions. Referendums result in these regions staying Ukranian. NATO issue is fudged in the deal. Ukraine is not banned from joining but never actually joins - or not in the medium term anyway.
Anyone else?
If I were Putin, I might try something like: "Mr President, you want America to have resources. If we get the Donbass, we will allow American companies to extract the resources from the Donbass, for a small fee. But obviously in return we'd need all sanctions lifting, and the entirety of the Donbass. In return we won't go any further west during your time in power."
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.
Boris said "Fuck Business", Rachel actually did it.
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?
Perhaps it is events and consideration that change minds rather than other posters.
I used to think there was some merit in Milliband's carbon capture scheme, for example. If we are to keep global warming within reasonable bounds, then rapid decarbonisation is essential, though practicality means that some fossil fuel use would be needed for a while yet, hence the need for CC (if practical, and it's a big if).
Now, though, I think the climate battle is basically lost. Trump's election was the final nail in the coffin, and all the big companies seem to be rowing back on their climate commitments. That said, I still think it would be crazy of us to keep wasting precious hydrocarbons as fuel when that are so essential for other purposes (plastics, etc). So I still strongly support the development of renewables, but there seems little point any more in paying to capturing the carbon from the stuff we do burn.
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.
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.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
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?
Negotiating points have to be at least semi-credible. That one isn't.
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.
Our current army would struggle to keep 5k men in the field indefinitely. (We used to have more than 20K in NI alone) I doubt many European countries other than France and Poland could match that. But the force is a trip wire, not a battle ready defence so it should be doable if we are willing to commit.
To a certain extent Trump is right. Europe has to deal with its own defence: why should this be an American problem? But I suspect he will find the price of giving up leadership higher than he expects.
Ration strength 75K so 5K seems a tad low and very long logistics tail.
"Jack Posobiec said Bucha never happened, pushed the biolabs conspiracy and retweets Dugin. Trump has sent this man as part of his delegation to Ukraine."
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.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
Oh yeah, and worse. And I've had some really dark times in recent years too - this is why I quit my job at the end of January.
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.
My parents are both deceased but while they were alive not too long ago both illustrate why you can't just add the C and Ref totals together.
My mother was a traditional conservative who was eventually lost to the LDs and the sort the Tories need to be winning back in places like Surrey. She could be persuaded to vote for Cameron, or May (who was very like her in fact) but no way would she have voted for Johnson. She never expressed negative views on anyone - but her opinion on Farage was clear and if there was a pact between Con and Ref you can be sure her vote would stay solidly LD.
My father on the other hand was a Never Tory and would happily vote for Farage as a 'NOTA' party 'to shake everything up'. But he would never support the Tories, so again a pact would probably also put him back in the LD camp (or Green).
So how do you retain the small and large C Conservatives (and attract recent LD and Lab defectors) who think Farage is a dangerous arse, and also the Never Tories who just want to send a two-fingered message to the rich and powerful, at the same time?
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.
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.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
Oh yeah, and worse. And I've had some really dark times in recent years too - this is why I quit my job at the end of January.
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?
Negotiating points have to be at least semi-credible. That one isn't.
10.44 GMT Poland is 'the model ally,' Hegseth says praising high defence spending US defence secretary Pete Hegseth opens with praises for Poland:
Our friendship, our bond is ironclad, and we came here specifically to reinforce that. We says he deliberately picked Poland for his first bilateral meeting in Europe to acknowledge Warsaw’s spending on defence as he calls Poland “the model ally.”
I do want to emphasise that it’s quite intentional that our first European bilateral is right here in Poland. The symbol, the symbolism, is not lost. In fact, it is intentional. We see Poland as the model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defence, but in our shared defence and the defence of the continent
Guardian
Trump and the USA are not abandoning NATO. They’re just telling us to stop fecking whining and grandstanding and stand up for ourselves
AND THEY ARE RIGHT
If we start pulling our weight then NATO will endure
Not quite.
They are pre-emptively and unilaterally surrendering, which is a little different.
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.
More likely that they are all over the place.
How do you negotiate with such a regime as the MAGA one? Particularly when it breaks its word at the first opportunity?
The problem of Trump's deal-making style from his real estate days is that it is based on never having to deal with the same customer again. The style needed in a longer term relationship with a customer is recognising that the best customer is a returning customer (as they have decided the purchase even before making contact). It's that second style that is needed in diplomacy, one that builds trust rather than attempting a rip-off.
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.
Why not have a pension system where the money people take out is the same money they put in instead of other money?
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.
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
They introduced the 2 child limit which is an indication of what they thought about young people and children.
What's with this talk this morning of arming Ukraine with nukes? Did Donald get all quivery with the accusations of betrayal and appeasement aimed at him? Perhaps he just wants to be loved.
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.
I yield before your rock solid and incontrovertible example of someone changing their mind.
PARIS—Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that the U.S. would hit Moscow with sanctions and potentially military action if Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t agree to a peace deal with Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv’s long-term independence.
Vance said the option of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith remained “on the table,” striking a far tougher tone than did Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who on Wednesday suggested the U.S. wouldn’t commit forces.
“There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the U.S. could use against Putin, Vance said.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal hours after President Trump said he would start negotiating with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, Vance said: “I think there is a deal that is going to come out of this that’s going to shock a lot of people.”
The vice president’s remarks, coming a day before a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, offered the Trump administration’s strongest-yet support for Kyiv in the face of Russian demands that it disarm and replace the current government.
“The president is not going to go in this with blinders on,” Vance said. “He’s going to say, ‘Everything is on the table, let’s make a deal.’”
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.
More likely that they are all over the place.
How do you negotiate with such a regime as the MAGA one? Particularly when it breaks its word at the first opportunity?
The problem of Trump's deal-making style from his real estate days is that it is based on never having to deal with the same customer again. The style needed in a longer term relationship with a customer is recognising that the best customer is a returning customer (as they have decided the purchase even before making contact). It's that second style that is needed in diplomacy, one that builds trust rather than attempting a rip-off.
Good point. It's the prisoner's dilemma. One game and you renege. A continuing game and you play tit-for-tat starting with cooperate to build trust. Robert Axelrod and the Evolution of Cooperation.
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.
My parents are both deceased but while they were alive not too long ago both illustrate why you can't just add the C and Ref totals together.
My mother was a traditional conservative who was eventually lost to the LDs and the sort the Tories need to be winning back in places like Surrey. She could be persuaded to vote for Cameron, or May (who was very like her in fact) but no way would she have voted for Johnson. She never expressed negative views on anyone - but her opinion on Farage was clear and if there was a pact between Con and Ref you can be sure her vote would stay solidly LD.
My father on the other hand was a Never Tory and would happily vote for Farage as a 'NOTA' party 'to shake everything up'. But he would never support the Tories, so again a pact would probably also put him back in the LD camp (or Green).
So how do you retain the small and large C Conservatives (and attract recent LD and Lab defectors) who think Farage is a dangerous arse, and also the Never Tories who just want to send a two-fingered message to the rich and powerful, at the same time?
The basic fact of the above it is more likely the next Conservative government will be in a hung parliament and coalition or confidence and supply deal with Reform than a Conservative majority, even if there is no Tory and Reform merger.
The Remain Tory to LD seats at the last GE are largely lost post Brexit to the Tories, they only mostly held their nose and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn. They are anti Labour and anti Brexit but then so are the LDs and oppose many Labour policies now too. If the LDs propped up a Labour minority government though after the next GE that might put some of them in play again for the Conservatives, especially the more rural ones
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.
I yield before your rock solid and incontrevertible example of someone changing their mind.
I was going to have a sandwich for lunch yesterday. I caught up on PB, and then changed my mind and had soup.
Obviously, Hamas and the Palestinians should drop all their weapons immediately and get taken over by Israel.
For 'peace'.
You beat me to it.
It seems bizarre that you would dispute Ukraine's right to defend herself, but support that of the Palestinians. Certainly, I'm struggling to understand how Ukraine provoked Russia, and forced her to start the war.
Well Trump said yesterday he thought Ukraines desire to join NATO was the main cause of the invasion.
Personally I think it's because Putin has a very small Penis but provakation was a factor.
Ah, the old "Ukrainians shouldn't be allowed to decide their own future" line. Nice,
What about the Canadians. They are actually members of NATO. No wonder that Trump is provoked by that.
And Mexico *isnt* a member of NATO. Which is also very provoking.
I am very provoked about France in NATO….
And Ireland isn't a proper country, was British for centuries, they all speak English. And is now a member of the EU - an organisation that is Britain's enemy and has Britain pretty much surrounded. Also Ireland hosted terrorists who attacked Britain for decades, Sinn Fein is the second biggest party in the Irish parliament. I assume @bigjohnowls will be a strong supporter of PM Tommy Robinson 'de-nazifying' Ireland with a bloody invasion.
Oi...we're too busy fighting each other to fight anyone else.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
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.
Our current army would struggle to keep 5k men in the field indefinitely. (We used to have more than 20K in NI alone) I doubt many European countries other than France and Poland could match that. But the force is a trip wire, not a battle ready defence so it should be doable if we are willing to commit.
To a certain extent Trump is right. Europe has to deal with its own defence: why should this be an American problem? But I suspect he will find the price of giving up leadership higher than he expects.
Ration strength 75K so 5K seems a tad low and very long logistics tail.
That's modern armies for you.
I don't think we could keep anything more than a Brigade in the field as an expeditionary force on a permanent basis. We could probably manage a division in the short term.
Probably the best deployment would be smaller battalion sized units as part of Ukranian divisions, to help with training, and also to learn modern drone and drone defence skills from the Ukes.
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.
I yield before your rock solid and incontrevertible example of someone changing their mind.
I was going to have a sandwich for lunch yesterday. I caught up on PB, and then changed my mind and had soup.
I thought productivity in the NHS was a disaster until Max shared some stats last night showing it grew by 14% between 2010 and 2019, even while NHS wages were cut by 7%.
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
They introduced the 2 child limit which is an indication of what they thought about young people and children.
Getting rid of that might encourage the birthrate a bit. As well as bringing back Sure Start.
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.
Then they will never form a majority government.
Never is a long time. I remember people saying Labour would never win another election not that long ago. The electorate is uniquely volatile and disaligned from party identification. This is not a particularly good thing - stability and institutional memory matters and too much disalignment is almost as bad as too much partisanship - but it is where we are.
Never is a long time, true. But the niche the Lib Dems now occupy (nice, mostly English, Britain; more Europhile than average but doesn't want to cause a fuss; very comfortable thank you but not exulting in it) is substantial and nicely clustered under FPTP. And unlike the 60s/70s niche of the Celtic fringe, it does a lot of damage to the prospect of a right-of-centre majority.
When the memoirs are written, I'd love to know how much it was deliberate, and how much it was driven by circumstances and luck.
As long as the Lib Dems can avoid another coalition collapse a) they should be fine and b) it doesn't take a genius to work out their next set of targets.
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.
I yield before your rock solid and incontrovertible example of someone changing their mind.
We have one regular poster who changes his mind more often than he changes his underpants. Just 6 months ago he voted for Starmer.
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.
Our current army would struggle to keep 5k men in the field indefinitely. (We used to have more than 20K in NI alone) I doubt many European countries other than France and Poland could match that. But the force is a trip wire, not a battle ready defence so it should be doable if we are willing to commit.
To a certain extent Trump is right. Europe has to deal with its own defence: why should this be an American problem? But I suspect he will find the price of giving up leadership higher than he expects.
Fun fact (I learned yday speaking to a friend involved) - there are now more army cadets (approx. 80,000) than regular soldiers (<80,000).
And your 20k in NI did not include (as your father will have experienced) 20k just home and 20k just about to go.
So a huge (and without any doubt now impossible) task for HMF.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
The DA quitting is the only good part of the story
And then the DOJ open an investigation into her for refusing orders
When the fuck will America wake up
This is disturbing,
Indeed. It's important to separate out the big elements of what is going on. The biggest are firstly the internal USA regime and its possible development into a full blown gangster oligarchy. SFAICS the world can do nothing about this to change things; USA has a couple of weapons, namely a remarkable tradition of free media critical journalism and the fact that half the population at least is against Trumpism. All we can do is choose our side.
Secondly, the other big one is external and the multiplicity of issues. In particular for us, the non USA NATO majority must act as rapidly as Trumpism is to position itself for an isolationist future. But in every external case, what Trump says and how it ends are not the same thing. We have to learn the language. Non USA NATO is about 500,000,000 million people and wealthy, and does a lot of trade with the USA.
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.
I yield before your rock solid and incontrevertible example of someone changing their mind.
I was going to have a sandwich for lunch yesterday. I caught up on PB, and then changed my mind and had soup.
Over the years I've considered the Tories as shits but capable. Ably assisted by some posters on here, I've come to the conclusion that they're also useless.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
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.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
Oh yeah, and worse. And I've had some really dark times in recent years too - this is why I quit my job at the end of January.
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
They introduced the 2 child limit which is an indication of what they thought about young people and children.
Getting rid of that might encourage the birthrate a bit. As well as bringing back Sure Start.
Surely that will just encourage benefit claimants to have more children. We want wealthy people to have more children.
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.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
Oh yeah, and worse. And I've had some really dark times in recent years too - this is why I quit my job at the end of January.
But, I can call out hypocrisy when I see it too.
Sorry to hear that. Hope things are going better for you now.
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.
PB posts can certainly change minds.
I used to think most people were reasonable, rational and open to persuasive argument!
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
Sure! But not the kind of merger he is thinking of.
I absolutely expect Reform to pick up much of the remains of the Tory party over the next few years. Its a "merger" in the same sense that bits of a planet get merged into a black hole as it gets ripped apart by irresistible forces of gravity.
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.
I was convinced by TUD's post. But now I find that your post has changed my mind.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
This assumes Trump has a strategy beyond self-glorification, self-enrichment and self-protection.
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.
I yield before your rock solid and incontrevertible example of someone changing their mind.
I was going to have a sandwich for lunch yesterday. I caught up on PB, and then changed my mind and had soup.
Over the years I've considered the Tories as shits but capable. Ably assisted by some posters on here, I've come to the conclusion that they're also useless.
I think I used to regard the Tories as a bit lacking in compassion and empathy but genuinely realistic about running the country and keeping finances under control. I always regarded Labour as generally more compassionate and empathetic but always likely to overspend. Sadly I think the Tories have lost their reputation for competency. I also think that many of us assumed that Starmer's Labour had a plan for office (it was obvious for well over a year that they would be in charge). We seem to have been wrong.
Russia gets to keep Crimea. Ukraine and UNSC recognise Crimea as Russian. Ukraine gets the other lands back, but some referendums are planned for some future point for those regions. Referendums result in these regions staying Ukranian. NATO issue is fudged in the deal. Ukraine is not banned from joining but never actually joins - or not in the medium term anyway.
Anyone else?
The UK/US supplies nuclear warheads*, Israel supplies Jericho 3 missiles to launch them on. Ukraine has a new nuclear deterrent.
The Corbynites explode, with a yield into the Gigatons.
Russia gets to keep Crimea. Ukraine and UNSC recognise Crimea as Russian. Ukraine gets the other lands back, but some referendums are planned for some future point for those regions. Referendums result in these regions staying Ukranian. NATO issue is fudged in the deal. Ukraine is not banned from joining but never actually joins - or not in the medium term anyway.
Anyone else?
That's right at the upper end for Ukraine, I'd say.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
Trouble that confuses those who might be on his side as well.
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.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
Oh yeah, and worse. And I've had some really dark times in recent years too - this is why I quit my job at the end of January.
But, I can call out hypocrisy when I see it too.
Fair enough. Hope you’re feeling better.
Thanks. Much. Seeing a therapist too.
Does the wife know you're having an affair with a therapist?
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
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?
Negotiating points have to be at least semi-credible. That one isn't.
Semi-credible if it's coming from a madman.
No one believes Trump is going to give nuclear weapons to Ukraine. In some things he is predictable. The nuclear club is still a fairly exclusive, one and status is something Trump values for its own sake.
Hegseth is a former Fox News colour commentator with a military background - and zero experience of politics or diplomacy. Nothing he says is particularly credible. If Trump were to repeat the idea, I might believe it as a negotiating tactic - but I'd be extremely surprised if he were to do so.
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.
You’re terrified of reform winning
They'd have to find another 320 odd MPs and 100 competent enough to be Ministers, the track record of UKIP/Brexit/Reform as local councillors would suggest that they'd well over 90 short on ministers.
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.
Well there was a poster called "Philip Thompson" who used to claim that he'd entered the EU debate as a Remainer but was converted to Leave by the arguments of Michael Gove and Casino Royale.
We make of this what we will. I know what I made of it.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
This assumes Trump has a strategy beyond self-glorification, self-enrichment and self-protection.
Yes, he has those, but I think it is a mistake to think he has no other strategy; and a bigger mistake to think the Trumpism movement has no other real long term aims. The job of the rest of the west is to play the game in our interests too. It's a new sort of politics, but politics it still is.
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?
Negotiating points have to be at least semi-credible. That one isn't.
Semi-credible if it's coming from a madman.
No one believes Trump is going to give nuclear weapons to Ukraine. In some things he is predictable. The nuclear club is still a fairly exclusive, one and status is something Trump values for its own sake.
Hegseth is a former Fox News colour commentator with a military background - and zero experience of politics or diplomacy. Nothing he says is particularly credible. If Trump were to repeat the idea, I might believe it as a negotiating tactic - but I'd be extremely surprised if he were to do so.
The Non-proliferation treaty specifically bans a nuclear weapons state giving a non-nuclear weapons state nukes.
Hence the NATO "borrowing" thing. America nukes lent to various European states (such as Germany).
EDIT: This leads to some interesting places. In the late fifties, this consisted of German aircraft, on the ground but on alert, with American nukes under the wings. The American custodians of the nukes sat next the aircraft, with the German pilots. One American got talking to the pilot - and discovered they'd been on opposite sides of a dogfight in WWII. Where the American got shot down...
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.
Then they will never form a majority government.
Never is a long time. I remember people saying Labour would never win another election not that long ago. The electorate is uniquely volatile and disaligned from party identification. This is not a particularly good thing - stability and institutional memory matters and too much disalignment is almost as bad as too much partisanship - but it is where we are.
Never is a long time, true. But the niche the Lib Dems now occupy (nice, mostly English, Britain; more Europhile than average but doesn't want to cause a fuss; very comfortable thank you but not exulting in it) is substantial and nicely clustered under FPTP. And unlike the 60s/70s niche of the Celtic fringe, it does a lot of damage to the prospect of a right-of-centre majority.
When the memoirs are written, I'd love to know how much it was deliberate, and how much it was driven by circumstances and luck.
As long as the Lib Dems can avoid another coalition collapse a) they should be fine and b) it doesn't take a genius to work out their next set of targets.
In my experience it was driven by circumstances and luck, notably the 2016 Brexit vote. That has created this geographical cluster of the suburban and commuter belt professional classes. But the West Country strength remains too and is structural. Lib Dems and their liberal equivalents overseas do well in regions with a history of decentralised land ownership rather than serfdom, and an absence of an urban working class. Bocage, in other words. The same factors that drive support for Rugby Union.
What we seem to have lost almost entirely is the non-conformist uplands, except for the far North of Scotland. Wales looks like it’s lost for good.
The geography of Macron strength in France is notably similar to the geography of Lib Dem strength in Britain. The Massif Central is France’s wales, and is visibly Macron-free.
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.
Then they will never form a majority government.
Never is a long time. I remember people saying Labour would never win another election not that long ago. The electorate is uniquely volatile and disaligned from party identification. This is not a particularly good thing - stability and institutional memory matters and too much disalignment is almost as bad as too much partisanship - but it is where we are.
Apologies if wrong and not a dig, but are you not on your third party since 2019?
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
I expect that within 8 and half minutes of any kind of ceasefire, the demands from certain German politicians to reconnect to Russian gas will be deafening. As will be the demands to drop sanctions and restart trade.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
I expect that within 8 and half minutes of any kind of ceasefire, the demands from certain German politicians to reconnect to Russian gas will be deafening. As will be the demands to drop sanctions and restart trade.
Trump is already anticipating that, publicly advocating for Russian readmission to the G7.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
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.
My parents are both deceased but while they were alive not too long ago both illustrate why you can't just add the C and Ref totals together.
My mother was a traditional conservative who was eventually lost to the LDs and the sort the Tories need to be winning back in places like Surrey. She could be persuaded to vote for Cameron, or May (who was very like her in fact) but no way would she have voted for Johnson. She never expressed negative views on anyone - but her opinion on Farage was clear and if there was a pact between Con and Ref you can be sure her vote would stay solidly LD.
My father on the other hand was a Never Tory and would happily vote for Farage as a 'NOTA' party 'to shake everything up'. But he would never support the Tories, so again a pact would probably also put him back in the LD camp (or Green).
So how do you retain the small and large C Conservatives (and attract recent LD and Lab defectors) who think Farage is a dangerous arse, and also the Never Tories who just want to send a two-fingered message to the rich and powerful, at the same time?
The basic fact of the above it is more likely the next Conservative government will be in a hung parliament and coalition or confidence and supply deal with Reform than a Conservative majority, even if there is no Tory and Reform merger.
The Remain Tory to LD seats at the last GE are largely lost post Brexit to the Tories, they only mostly held their nose and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn. They are anti Labour and anti Brexit but then so are the LDs and oppose many Labour policies now too. If the LDs propped up a Labour minority government though after the next GE that might put some of them in play again for the Conservatives, especially the more rural ones
I agree with your analysis, but do you think a formal pact with Ref is the best way to get some sort of a Conservative minority, or not? I know you look closely at the polls, and have a reasonable feeling of Tory member views. Would the potential votes lost by a formal pact be more than outweighed by the advantages under FPTP of not splitting the vote, in areas that are mostly C/Ref v Labour fights? (You seem to have written off the LD seats for the time being).
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.
PB posts can certainly change minds.
I used to think most people were reasonable, rational and open to persuasive argument!
I used to think people on pb change their minds as well, but having seen some posts on here am now certain that they don't.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
How does this work? Does the Conservative party purchase all the shares from Farage and Tice? I can't see Farage or Tice welcoming it, currently Reform is an effective dictatorship while the Conservative Party is a democracy, Reform "supporters" would have to convert to members of the new Party, after which they might elect Farage (or "Tommy Robinson"). Kenneth Clarke, Heseltine, Portillo or Philip Hammond (perhaps too young), ex-senior ministers, are "grandees" Sir Edward Leigh is just old.
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.
Well there was a poster called "Philip Thompson" who used to claim that he'd entered the EU debate as a Remainer but was converted to Leave by the arguments of Michael Gove and Casino Royale.
We make of this what we will. I know what I made of it.
I'm sure old Phil learned his lesson from this and has become more open minded and less likely to espouse views to a manically stubborn level.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
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.
You’re terrified of reform winning
They'd have to find another 320 odd MPs and 100 competent enough to be Ministers, the track record of UKIP/Brexit/Reform as local councillors would suggest that they'd well over 90 short on ministers.
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.
I yield before your rock solid and incontrovertible example of someone changing their mind.
We have one regular poster who changes his mind more often than he changes his underpants. Just 6 months ago he voted for Starmer.
Don't mock. It's great for our DEI credentials in Labour that we have some hard righters in the tent.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
I expect that within 8 and half minutes of any kind of ceasefire, the demands from certain German politicians to reconnect to Russian gas will be deafening. As will be the demands to drop sanctions and restart trade.
Trump is already anticipating that, publicly advocating for Russian readmission to the G7.
PARIS—Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that the U.S. would hit Moscow with sanctions and potentially military action if Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t agree to a peace deal with Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv’s long-term independence.
Vance said the option of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith remained “on the table,” striking a far tougher tone than did Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who on Wednesday suggested the U.S. wouldn’t commit forces.
“There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the U.S. could use against Putin, Vance said.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal hours after President Trump said he would start negotiating with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, Vance said: “I think there is a deal that is going to come out of this that’s going to shock a lot of people.”
The vice president’s remarks, coming a day before a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, offered the Trump administration’s strongest-yet support for Kyiv in the face of Russian demands that it disarm and replace the current government.
“The president is not going to go in this with blinders on,” Vance said. “He’s going to say, ‘Everything is on the table, let’s make a deal.’”
Too many Americans saying Ukraine has no hope of getting back the lands Russia has stolen by force.
But if Ukraine keeps doing damage to Russia at the rate of the last few months, the Russian economy will break - and require international assistance to get back to a point where it can even feed its people. It is a hydrocarbon economy, whose ability to get those hydrocarbons to market is being systematically destroyed. Missiles slamming into your refining and storage capacity is happening far faster than Russia fix it. When one missile strike that cost Ukraine less than a million quid takes out 5% of Russian refining capacity, this is not a war Russia has ever planned for. It was certainly never a modelled outcome of the Special Military Operation.
Ukraine needs to keep destroying stuff at a rate Russia cannot sustain. That is how it gets it lost lands back. All of them.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
”Germany is the one country in NATO, that did not follow the stupid Washington consensus and allow their country to be deindustrialized during the ‘70s, ’80s, and ‘90s.
And yet, at the very moment that Putin is more and more powerful, where the Russian army is invading European countries en masse, this is the point at which Germany starts to deindustrialize?”
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
I think it’s quite clear that Musk is openly on the Russian side of the argument and close to moving beyond apologist to supporter of Putin. Trump: harder to tell, but isn’t that because he lacks meaningful ideology other than being pro-himself. He’s certainly been susceptible to Putinist talking points but I don’t think he’s yet fully on team Putin.
Comments
So anything he says has zero practical meaning, as he could say something randomly different tomorrow.
He might as well have said, say, "If you don't give me your cookie, I will stomp on your foot and break your toes."
Yep a truly historic moment.
Huge.
Russia gets to keep Crimea. Ukraine and UNSC recognise Crimea as Russian. Ukraine gets the other lands back, but some referendums are planned for some future point for those regions. Referendums result in these regions staying Ukranian. NATO issue is fudged in the deal. Ukraine is not banned from joining but never actually joins - or not in the medium term anyway.
Anyone else?
Having dominated the Assembly / Senedd for 26 years, it'll be a hell of a culture shock for Labour to wind up with less than a quarter of the seats.
We could well end up with a result where the Tories are the king-makers.
Ditto voting Reform and splitting the vote. A horribly mixed up House of Commons with multiple rainbow coalition options does not remove Labour from power. And that will top trump the Tories having been crap last time out.
To a certain extent Trump is right. Europe has to deal with its own defence: why should this be an American problem? But I suspect he will find the price of giving up leadership higher than he expects.
Politically, I think one interesting thing to see will be whether Kemi pivots from playing partisan games to being a serious politician.
Gravitas beckons.
The hyperbolic arguments you and your liberal ilk are putting forward this morning are having the opposite effect to what you intend; they're driving me towards supporting a deal, not away.
Think again. Unless you actually really want to just feel good and down with your peer group, and welcome the part you can play in driving polarisation.
Hence political parties put a lot of their effort into geeing up wavering supporters who might otherwise stay on the sofa, rather than converting swing voters.
Or the way that many voters will stick with a political brand long after it has ceased doing what first attracted them.
10.44 GMT
Poland is 'the model ally,' Hegseth says praising high defence spending
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth opens with praises for Poland:
Our friendship, our bond is ironclad, and we came here specifically to reinforce that.
We says he deliberately picked Poland for his first bilateral meeting in Europe to acknowledge Warsaw’s spending on defence as he calls Poland “the model ally.”
I do want to emphasise that it’s quite intentional that our first European bilateral is right here in Poland. The symbol, the symbolism, is not lost. In fact, it is intentional.
We see Poland as the model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defence, but in our shared defence and the defence of the continent
Guardian
Trump and the USA are not abandoning NATO. They’re just telling us to stop fecking whining and grandstanding and stand up for ourselves
AND THEY ARE RIGHT
If we start pulling our weight then NATO will endure
People are regularly held accountable for having "got it wrong" or "called it wrong" when they fail to correctly predict the future; the opposite is also true with those that get it right being called sages and legends.
No human can predict the future consistently.
All you can do is exercise your best judgement.
I used to think there was some merit in Milliband's carbon capture scheme, for example. If we are to keep global warming within reasonable bounds, then rapid decarbonisation is essential, though practicality means that some fossil fuel use would be needed for a while yet, hence the need for CC (if practical, and it's a big if).
Now, though, I think the climate battle is basically lost. Trump's election was the final nail in the coffin, and all the big companies seem to be rowing back on their climate commitments. That said, I still think it would be crazy of us to keep wasting precious hydrocarbons as fuel when that are so essential for other purposes (plastics, etc). So I still strongly support the development of renewables, but there seems little point any more in paying to capturing the carbon from the stuff we do burn.
Are they the least self-aware political group in history?
That one isn't.
https://x.com/CaolanRob/status/1890211634637045870
But, I can call out hypocrisy when I see it too.
My mother was a traditional conservative who was eventually lost to the LDs and the sort the Tories need to be winning back in places like Surrey. She could be persuaded to vote for Cameron, or May (who was very like her in fact) but no way would she have voted for Johnson. She never expressed negative views on anyone - but her opinion on Farage was clear and if there was a pact between Con and Ref you can be sure her vote would stay solidly LD.
My father on the other hand was a Never Tory and would happily vote for Farage as a 'NOTA' party 'to shake everything up'. But he would never support the Tories, so again a pact would probably also put him back in the LD camp (or Green).
So how do you retain the small and large C Conservatives (and attract recent LD and Lab defectors) who think Farage is a dangerous arse, and also the Never Tories who just want to send a two-fingered message to the rich and powerful, at the same time?
It already is.
They are pre-emptively and unilaterally surrendering, which is a little different.
They are also playing a double game.
How do you negotiate with such a regime as the MAGA one? Particularly when it breaks its word at the first opportunity?
The problem of Trump's deal-making style from his real estate days is that it is based on never having to deal with the same customer again. The style needed in a longer term relationship with a customer is recognising that the best customer is a returning customer (as they have decided the purchase even before making contact). It's that second style that is needed in diplomacy, one that builds trust rather than attempting a rip-off.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/vance-wields-threat-of-sanctions-military-action-to-push-putin-into-ukraine-deal-da9c18ac
PARIS—Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that the U.S. would hit Moscow with sanctions and potentially military action if Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t agree to a peace deal with Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv’s long-term independence.
Vance said the option of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith remained “on the table,” striking a far tougher tone than did Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who on Wednesday suggested the U.S. wouldn’t commit forces.
“There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the U.S. could use against Putin, Vance said.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal hours after President Trump said he would start negotiating with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, Vance said: “I think there is a deal that is going to come out of this that’s going to shock a lot of people.”
The vice president’s remarks, coming a day before a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, offered the Trump administration’s strongest-yet support for Kyiv in the face of Russian demands that it disarm and replace the current government.
“The president is not going to go in this with blinders on,” Vance said. “He’s going to say, ‘Everything is on the table, let’s make a deal.’”
Robert Axelrod and the Evolution of Cooperation.
The Remain Tory to LD seats at the last GE are largely lost post Brexit to the Tories, they only mostly held their nose and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn. They are anti Labour and anti Brexit but then so are the LDs and oppose many Labour policies now too. If the LDs propped up a Labour minority government though after the next GE that might put some of them in play again for the Conservatives, especially the more rural ones
Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/02/14/70pc-chance-reform-and-tories-will-merge-says-tory-grandee/
I don't think we could keep anything more than a Brigade in the field as an expeditionary force on a permanent basis. We could probably manage a division in the short term.
Probably the best deployment would be smaller battalion sized units as part of Ukranian divisions, to help with training, and also to learn modern drone and drone defence skills from the Ukes.
When the memoirs are written, I'd love to know how much it was deliberate, and how much it was driven by circumstances and luck.
As long as the Lib Dems can avoid another coalition collapse a) they should be fine and b) it doesn't take a genius to work out their next set of targets.
And your 20k in NI did not include (as your father will have experienced) 20k just home and 20k just about to go.
So a huge (and without any doubt now impossible) task for HMF.
Secondly, the other big one is external and the multiplicity of issues. In particular for us, the non USA NATO majority must act as rapidly as Trumpism is to position itself for an isolationist future. But in every external case, what Trump says and how it ends are not the same thing. We have to learn the language. Non USA NATO is about 500,000,000 million people and wealthy, and does a lot of trade with the USA.
I used to think most people were reasonable, rational and open to persuasive argument!
I absolutely expect Reform to pick up much of the remains of the Tory party over the next few years. Its a "merger" in the same sense that bits of a planet get merged into a black hole as it gets ripped apart by irresistible forces of gravity.
Sadly I think the Tories have lost their reputation for competency.
I also think that many of us assumed that Starmer's Labour had a plan for office (it was obvious for well over a year that they would be in charge). We seem to have been wrong.
The Corbynites explode, with a yield into the Gigatons.
*A replica of Violet Club for extra MADness?
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
In some things he is predictable. The nuclear club is still a fairly exclusive, one and status is something Trump values for its own sake.
Hegseth is a former Fox News colour commentator with a military background - and zero experience of politics or diplomacy. Nothing he says is particularly credible.
If Trump were to repeat the idea, I might believe it as a negotiating tactic - but I'd be extremely surprised if he were to do so.
So it's not a welcome prospect
We make of this what we will. I know what I made of it.
Geoff Marshall"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WJPp1eDap0
Hence the NATO "borrowing" thing. America nukes lent to various European states (such as Germany).
EDIT: This leads to some interesting places. In the late fifties, this consisted of German aircraft, on the ground but on alert, with American nukes under the wings. The American custodians of the nukes sat next the aircraft, with the German pilots. One American got talking to the pilot - and discovered they'd been on opposite sides of a dogfight in WWII. Where the American got shot down...
What we seem to have lost almost entirely is the non-conformist uplands, except for the far North of Scotland. Wales looks like it’s lost for good.
The geography of Macron strength in France is notably similar to the geography of Lib Dem strength in Britain. The Massif Central is France’s wales, and is visibly Macron-free.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/feb/14/russia-ukraine-war-peace-vladimir-putin-volodymyr-zelenskyy-donald-trump-munich-security-conference-europe-news?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-67af16158f085b5f5c28c34f#block-67af16158f085b5f5c28c34f
..But an apparent attempt to soften her image later faltered when the head of an elder care home in the audience told her the AfD’s highly restrictive immigration policy would create catastrophic labour shortages in his sector. After she accused him of failing to read her party’s manifesto, the man shot back: “You should read your party manifesto.” Weidel then accused him of being a plant to sabotage her appearance. “I have the impression that you learned that (the AfD criticism) by heart.” Several members of the audience jeered at Weidel in response...
Merz seem to have done OK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
Thames Water launches appeal for permission to raise bills even higher
Struggling firm to appeal to CMA to increase water bills by more than Ofwat-approved 35% over next five years
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/14/thames-water-launches-appeal-for-permission-to-raise-bills-even-higher
Does the Conservative party purchase all the shares from Farage and Tice?
I can't see Farage or Tice welcoming it, currently Reform is an effective dictatorship while the Conservative Party is a democracy, Reform "supporters" would have to convert to members of the new Party, after which they might elect Farage (or "Tommy Robinson").
Kenneth Clarke, Heseltine, Portillo or Philip Hammond (perhaps too young), ex-senior ministers, are "grandees"
Sir Edward Leigh is just old.
And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
But if Ukraine keeps doing damage to Russia at the rate of the last few months, the Russian economy will break - and require international assistance to get back to a point where it can even feed its people. It is a hydrocarbon economy, whose ability to get those hydrocarbons to market is being systematically destroyed. Missiles slamming into your refining and storage capacity is happening far faster than Russia fix it. When one missile strike that cost Ukraine less than a million quid takes out 5% of Russian refining capacity, this is not a war Russia has ever planned for. It was certainly never a modelled outcome of the Special Military Operation.
Ukraine needs to keep destroying stuff at a rate Russia cannot sustain. That is how it gets it lost lands back. All of them.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1890355146049106429
”Germany is the one country in NATO, that did not follow the stupid Washington consensus and allow their country to be deindustrialized during the ‘70s, ’80s, and ‘90s.
And yet, at the very moment that Putin is more and more powerful, where the Russian army is invading European countries en masse, this is the point at which Germany starts to deindustrialize?”
My UnDictatorship will be fun