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.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
'Supporting' is not just analysis.
Where is the support bit in wot he wrote:
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
The Russian oil industry is now "all in" because the bulk of it is situated west of the Urals and now in range of Ukraine drone strikes. There could perhaps have been back channel chats to keep power and oil facilities "off limits" to both sides. But that hasn't happened. The latest Ukrainian strikes on oil refining and storage capacity are taking it off-line for months. Maybe longer, as Russia doesn't have access to spares embargoed by the West. Whilst chips for missiles might get smuggled in from various of the Stans, trying to smuggle in a number of distillation towers isn't possible. So the capacity to refine crude oil is reducing at an alarming rate for Russia.
If it can't refine the oil, it has to store it until it can sell it. As sales to India are the latest to have ended, there's more need for storage - which storage the Ukrainians are destroying. If it can't store it, Russia has to stop production. Stopping production can be terminal to oil wells continuing production. It means they have to be reworked when production recommences. This process is very expensive and can take years - as was shown when the Soviet Union collapsed.
If Ukraine isn't leant on to stop hitting the Russian refining and storage capacity, it's hand in the negotaition gets stronger and stronger over time. No Russian oil = no money for Russia = no Russian army in Ukraine. Russia has planned its war on the expectation that Trump will step in to call for a ceasefire that fixes the current de facto borders. Russia is absolutely at the limit of holding its gains in Ukraine. Stockpiles of Soviet-era tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are largely gone; Russian production is a fraction of losses on the battlefield. Its infantry are now trying to get to the Ukrainian lines in comandeered cars. Few make it. Many more months of this will expose the Russian army for the hollowed out entity that remains.
Naturally I didn't read your post (keep it pithy would be my advice).
But if it says something like just one more push/Russia is going to run out of XYZ/any minute now he will fail/etc then give over.
Just today, Ukraine have hit a steel mill that produces 20% of Russia's steel...
So what do you expect to happen. Russia to run out of steel?
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.
You and I don't have much in common, infact we are normally at each other's throats, but keep your pecker up Casino!
'Concerns are growing the UK could be hit with higher US trade taxes after President Donald Trump announced he would target VAT in his latest move.
Trump has instructed his staff to develop custom "reciprocal tariffs" - charging the same amount as levies imposed on American exports - for each country.
The UK's trading relationship with US had suggested it would be less exposed to tariffs than others, but the surprise inclusion of VAT to calculate potential tariffs has prompted questions over the impact on British businesses.
Analysts have suggested tariffs of 20% or more could be placed on the UK as well as the European Union.'
Trump's focus on VAT displays a jaw dropping level of economic illiteracy. VAT is designed to be completely non-disctiminatory between domestic production and imports. Either his team is completely ignorant or this is simply a smokescreen designed to justify punitive US tariffs under the guise of reciprocity.
More likely than not the latter, but frankly who knows what's going on anymore?
It is interesting to note that for the last decade the UK electorate have been voting to make themselves poorer. From Brexit to Johnson and now Labour. The idea that switching resources from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector will get you growth on its own is laughable. The old tricks of the government such as bringing in foreign labour or selling off assets no longer work. The only way to get growth back is when we decide to focus our resources on investnents with good returns not humanity or DEI objectives.
The richest people in the country are the most negative on Labour and I fall into this category. I am already planning for a sterling crash keeping more money offshore. I am cutting back on my labour budget and looking only at opportunities with rapid returns. The reality is there are many opportunities as so many of my competitors have been sold off to overseas multinationals.
The middle class prefer to ponder about Gaza and Ukraine where we can do little than the chaos in our streets. As such I doubt much will change immediately. However at some point Reform or some incarnation of it will take power. The only question is is this going to happen soon or in many years.
Reform cannot be trusted on either defence or national security. Both issues are going to balloon in importance over the coming years. Both Labour and the Tories should be hammering this point home.
Nobody can be trusted on defence.
Thought experiment: Rachel Reeves (or, for that matter, whoever might be Chancellor in a theoretical right-leaning Government) finds £10bn down the back of the Treasury sofa. Does it get spent on (a) the army, (b) the navy, or (c) bungs for middle class pensioners, to be spaffed away on Saga cruises and luxury dog food?
If Putin gets tempted to conquer the Baltic States then he will get them. This country won't be serious about defence until the Russian army has reached the Rhine, and Britain and France have no cards to play other than to threaten a nuclear holocaust in which absolutely everyone dies horribly. Trident, assuming it has been maintained in working order, is all we have left.
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Trump's politics are indistinguishable from those of a centrist Democrat c. 1990.
The centrist Democrat in the 1990s was Bill Clinton. They are plainly different people with different policies
No, that was before Clinton transformed the Democrats into a party of corporate interests.
It is interesting to note that for the last decade the UK electorate have been voting to make themselves poorer. From Brexit to Johnson and now Labour. The idea that switching resources from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector will get you growth on its own is laughable. The old tricks of the government such as bringing in foreign labour or selling off assets no longer work. The only way to get growth back is when we decide to focus our resources on investnents with good returns not humanity or DEI objectives.
The richest people in the country are the most negative on Labour and I fall into this category. I am already planning for a sterling crash keeping more money offshore. I am cutting back on my labour budget and looking only at opportunities with rapid returns. The reality is there are many opportunities as so many of my competitors have been sold off to overseas multinationals.
The middle class prefer to ponder about Gaza and Ukraine where we can do little than the chaos in our streets. As such I doubt much will change immediately. However at some point Reform or some incarnation of it will take power. The only question is is this going to happen soon or in many years.
Brexit was a F*** you vote by those who were poor and didn’t think the Government was doing anything for them.
The 2017 election was a lost vote due to May screwing up the election.
2019 was Bozo saying he will implement Brexit and getting elected by the have nots to implement it.
2024 was the consequences of Bozo and co failing to give the have nots what he promised
2028/9 is likely to be the same with the have nots voting for someone else to delivery the impossible - nothing is going to change because most of the have nots are never going to be better off - it’s just not possible to fix the problems they have
There is a lot of truth in that
Indeed successive politicians not telling the truth because it is politically toxic is why I see no end to it, unless it is taken out of their control by the IMF at sometime in the future
It isn't really true, The leave voting block was predominantly retired and thus generally home owning and less credentialed. The 'poor' by whatever metrics were much more likely to not vote.
The most distinctive split in the last few elections is between the working age groups and those who are older. If we excluded the over 65s IMO Labour would have won every election since 2017. I will agree that Reform are now muddying the waters but I do not believe Nigel will sway even a plurality of the working age groups.
Farage is gaining votes across the board at present
It is interesting to note that for the last decade the UK electorate have been voting to make themselves poorer. From Brexit to Johnson and now Labour. The idea that switching resources from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector will get you growth on its own is laughable. The old tricks of the government such as bringing in foreign labour or selling off assets no longer work. The only way to get growth back is when we decide to focus our resources on investnents with good returns not humanity or DEI objectives.
The richest people in the country are the most negative on Labour and I fall into this category. I am already planning for a sterling crash keeping more money offshore. I am cutting back on my labour budget and looking only at opportunities with rapid returns. The reality is there are many opportunities as so many of my competitors have been sold off to overseas multinationals.
The middle class prefer to ponder about Gaza and Ukraine where we can do little than the chaos in our streets. As such I doubt much will change immediately. However at some point Reform or some incarnation of it will take power. The only question is is this going to happen soon or in many years.
Brexit was a F*** you vote by those who were poor and didn’t think the Government was doing anything for them.
The 2017 election was a lost vote due to May screwing up the election.
2019 was Bozo saying he will implement Brexit and getting elected by the have nots to implement it.
2024 was the consequences of Bozo and co failing to give the have nots what he promised
2028/9 is likely to be the same with the have nots voting for someone else to delivery the impossible - nothing is going to change because most of the have nots are never going to be better off - it’s just not possible to fix the problems they have
There is a lot of truth in that
Indeed successive politicians not telling the truth because it is politically toxic is why I see no end to it, unless it is taken out of their control by the IMF at sometime in the future
It isn't really true, The leave voting block was predominantly retired and thus generally home owning and less credentialed. The 'poor' by whatever metrics were much more likely to not vote.
The most distinctive split in the last few elections is between the working age groups and those who are older. If we excluded the over 65s IMO Labour would have won every election since 2017. I will agree that Reform are now muddying the waters but I do not believe Nigel will sway even a plurality of the working age groups.
Except most voters over 45 not 65 voted Leave in 2016 and Reform do best with 50-70s in most polls not pensioners
Not most over 45, most somewhere between 45-65. Where that boundary lies who knows?
Its effectively evens between Cons and Reform at the 50-64 age range. No need to bring the older groups into it. A plurality of working age groups it is not.
Not that working age groups alone are decisive anyway, the median UK voter is now 50 not 30
I agree, the country is ageing and there is a conservative bias in the demographics. But with natural attrition and the seemingly fixed voting patterns of even younger cohorts the larger 'millennial' voting block will come to dominate in the next decade. You could say that the first real political loss of the 'boomer' generation was 2024.
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Because you libs have basically destroyed our countries we are left with no choice
That sounds like something a dictator would say. Just saying.
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.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
'Supporting' is not just analysis.
Where is the support bit in wot he wrote:
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
The Russian oil industry is now "all in" because the bulk of it is situated west of the Urals and now in range of Ukraine drone strikes. There could perhaps have been back channel chats to keep power and oil facilities "off limits" to both sides. But that hasn't happened. The latest Ukrainian strikes on oil refining and storage capacity are taking it off-line for months. Maybe longer, as Russia doesn't have access to spares embargoed by the West. Whilst chips for missiles might get smuggled in from various of the Stans, trying to smuggle in a number of distillation towers isn't possible. So the capacity to refine crude oil is reducing at an alarming rate for Russia.
If it can't refine the oil, it has to store it until it can sell it. As sales to India are the latest to have ended, there's more need for storage - which storage the Ukrainians are destroying. If it can't store it, Russia has to stop production. Stopping production can be terminal to oil wells continuing production. It means they have to be reworked when production recommences. This process is very expensive and can take years - as was shown when the Soviet Union collapsed.
If Ukraine isn't leant on to stop hitting the Russian refining and storage capacity, it's hand in the negotaition gets stronger and stronger over time. No Russian oil = no money for Russia = no Russian army in Ukraine. Russia has planned its war on the expectation that Trump will step in to call for a ceasefire that fixes the current de facto borders. Russia is absolutely at the limit of holding its gains in Ukraine. Stockpiles of Soviet-era tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are largely gone; Russian production is a fraction of losses on the battlefield. Its infantry are now trying to get to the Ukrainian lines in comandeered cars. Few make it. Many more months of this will expose the Russian army for the hollowed out entity that remains.
Naturally I didn't read your post (keep it pithy would be my advice).
But if it says something like just one more push/Russia is going to run out of XYZ/any minute now he will fail/etc then give over.
Just today, Ukraine have hit a steel mill that produces 20% of Russia's steel...
So what do you expect to happen. Russia to run out of steel?
If you hit enough productive capacity then sooner or later it will not have something critical that it needs, when it needs it.
Russia's advances in the east have slowed to a snail's pace, at horrendous cost. Very much WWI figures. Remember how that ended for the Russian regime. They didn't lose because the Germans occupied Petrograd; they lost because civil society and the army broke.
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Trump's politics are indistinguishable from those of a centrist Democrat c. 1990. Arguably he is saving liberalism from the radical progressives who have been driving it off the cliff for the last few decades.
Bill Clinton and Gore backed NAFTA not tariff wars and were more open to immigration than Trump too and backed a 2 state solution in the Middle East and NATO
He's ordering Europe to let neo-Nazis into government, so of course you'd like him.
Eia eia alala!
Many thanks to @Theuniondivvie for suggesting Sky Atlantic’s Mussolini. Unusual but good. And timely
Speaking of which, I had occasion yesterday to read the Speccie from cover to cover. I mean I can't argue with the circulation stats or perhaps even the readership demographic but god it was turgid and nothing seems to have changed since years ago. The same bitter, I miss the 1950s when people knew their place article by Charles Moore at the front, a why oh why from the otherwise excellent Douglas Murray, and in general still a retail offer to retired colonels and parish councillors.
I didn't get the young, bright, snappy, relevant element that is bringing droves of young people to the mag.
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Trump's politics are indistinguishable from those of a centrist Democrat c. 1990. Arguably he is saving liberalism from the radical progressives who have been driving it off the cliff for the last few decades.
He absolutely is. The only way to save liberalism is to destroy it.
Progressivism is incompatible with liberalism. It's progressivism that must be destroyed to save liberalism.
Got it - and free speech, free trade, the rule of law and liberal democracy are progressive so have to be have to be destroyed. I can see it now. Cheers!
The most anti-democratic current of thought in the West at the moment is the idea that the winner of an election should be prevented from implementing his policies and it's not Trump who is promoting it.
"At the moment" noted. So, when was it mainstream for election winners to do whatever they wanted even if it was against the law?
He's ordering Europe to let neo-Nazis into government, so of course you'd like him.
Eia eia alala!
Many thanks to @Theuniondivvie for suggesting Sky Atlantic’s Mussolini. Unusual but good. And timely
Speaking of which, I had occasion yesterday to read the Speccie from cover to cover. I mean I can't argue with the circulation stats or perhaps even the readership demographic but god it was turgid and nothing seems to have changed since years ago. The same bitter, I miss the 1950s when people knew their place article by Charles Moore at the front, a why oh why from the otherwise excellent Douglas Murray, and in general still a retail offer to retired colonels and parish councillors.
I didn't get the young, bright, snappy, relevant element that is bringing droves of young people to the mag.
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Trump's politics are indistinguishable from those of a centrist Democrat c. 1990. Arguably he is saving liberalism from the radical progressives who have been driving it off the cliff for the last few decades.
Bill Clinton and Gore backed NAFTA not tariff wars and were more open to immigration than Trump too and backed a 2 state solution in the Middle East and NATO
Good "community note" there HY.
Bullshit needs to be called out.
It’s not bullshit. Clinton got NAFTA through with Republican votes. The majority of Democrats opposed it. Free trade becoming an article of faith for the left illustrates the way in which they have become detached from working class interests.
He's ordering Europe to let neo-Nazis into government, so of course you'd like him.
Eia eia alala!
Many thanks to @Theuniondivvie for suggesting Sky Atlantic’s Mussolini. Unusual but good. And timely
Speaking of which, I had occasion yesterday to read the Speccie from cover to cover. I mean I can't argue with the circulation stats or perhaps even the readership demographic but god it was turgid and nothing seems to have changed since years ago. The same bitter, I miss the 1950s when people knew their place article by Charles Moore at the front, a why oh why from the otherwise excellent Douglas Murray, and in general still a retail offer to retired colonels and parish councillors.
I didn't get the young, bright, snappy, relevant element that is bringing droves of young people to the mag.
Don't act so surprised. We get the free edition on here, and it's all about the Groucho Club and pictures of far flung breakfasts.
It is interesting to note that for the last decade the UK electorate have been voting to make themselves poorer. From Brexit to Johnson and now Labour. The idea that switching resources from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector will get you growth on its own is laughable. The old tricks of the government such as bringing in foreign labour or selling off assets no longer work. The only way to get growth back is when we decide to focus our resources on investnents with good returns not humanity or DEI objectives.
The richest people in the country are the most negative on Labour and I fall into this category. I am already planning for a sterling crash keeping more money offshore. I am cutting back on my labour budget and looking only at opportunities with rapid returns. The reality is there are many opportunities as so many of my competitors have been sold off to overseas multinationals.
The middle class prefer to ponder about Gaza and Ukraine where we can do little than the chaos in our streets. As such I doubt much will change immediately. However at some point Reform or some incarnation of it will take power. The only question is is this going to happen soon or in many years.
Quite strong "Mayfair 70s gaming club" energy here.
Indeed. I think I’ve found an ally. Gonna DM him
He's not so universally sordid as you. His post implies he voted Remain.
Ooh. “Universally sordid”. I’m gonna take that as a compliment. Can I quote you and describe you as a closeted gay retired golf playing accountant?
That provenance somehow makes it even better
I guess if I'd worked harder at school I could by now have been an ageing hack with a flat in Camden. But there's no point in regrets.
No, I don’t think so. I think you worked as hard as you could - and ended up what you are - a closeted gay retired golf playing accountant. Some may sneer at that, but not me. You did the very best you could with the very average hand you were dealt
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.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
'Supporting' is not just analysis.
Where is the support bit in wot he wrote:
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
The Russian oil industry is now "all in" because the bulk of it is situated west of the Urals and now in range of Ukraine drone strikes. There could perhaps have been back channel chats to keep power and oil facilities "off limits" to both sides. But that hasn't happened. The latest Ukrainian strikes on oil refining and storage capacity are taking it off-line for months. Maybe longer, as Russia doesn't have access to spares embargoed by the West. Whilst chips for missiles might get smuggled in from various of the Stans, trying to smuggle in a number of distillation towers isn't possible. So the capacity to refine crude oil is reducing at an alarming rate for Russia.
If it can't refine the oil, it has to store it until it can sell it. As sales to India are the latest to have ended, there's more need for storage - which storage the Ukrainians are destroying. If it can't store it, Russia has to stop production. Stopping production can be terminal to oil wells continuing production. It means they have to be reworked when production recommences. This process is very expensive and can take years - as was shown when the Soviet Union collapsed.
If Ukraine isn't leant on to stop hitting the Russian refining and storage capacity, it's hand in the negotaition gets stronger and stronger over time. No Russian oil = no money for Russia = no Russian army in Ukraine. Russia has planned its war on the expectation that Trump will step in to call for a ceasefire that fixes the current de facto borders. Russia is absolutely at the limit of holding its gains in Ukraine. Stockpiles of Soviet-era tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are largely gone; Russian production is a fraction of losses on the battlefield. Its infantry are now trying to get to the Ukrainian lines in comandeered cars. Few make it. Many more months of this will expose the Russian army for the hollowed out entity that remains.
Naturally I didn't read your post (keep it pithy would be my advice).
But if it says something like just one more push/Russia is going to run out of XYZ/any minute now he will fail/etc then give over.
Just today, Ukraine have hit a steel mill that produces 20% of Russia's steel...
As Topping says so what
They have lost and will be giving up land
They will be repaying America via mineral rights.
Its like Hitler claiming a triumph as he has a new heating system in his bunker in 1945
As one of the chief "Ukraine is going to win this" posters for the last 3 years.
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Trump's politics are indistinguishable from those of a centrist Democrat c. 1990.
The centrist Democrat in the 1990s was Bill Clinton. They are plainly different people with different policies
No, that was before Clinton transformed the Democrats into a party of corporate interests...
I'm pretty sure Trump is the party of corporate interests, provided the bodies corporate are i) oligarchs or ii) himself
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Because you libs have basically destroyed our countries we are left with no choice
That sounds like something a dictator would say. Just saying.
It's the sort of populist hyperbole beloved of those with limited intellect. Oh sorry @Leon and you with the very high IQ that you were boasting about earlier. By the way, people that boast of high IQ are normally always those who are terrified of taking the test and would struggle to win at noughts and crosses even if they went first!
He's ordering Europe to let neo-Nazis into government, so of course you'd like him.
Eia eia alala!
Many thanks to @Theuniondivvie for suggesting Sky Atlantic’s Mussolini. Unusual but good. And timely
Speaking of which, I had occasion yesterday to read the Speccie from cover to cover. I mean I can't argue with the circulation stats or perhaps even the readership demographic but god it was turgid and nothing seems to have changed since years ago. The same bitter, I miss the 1950s when people knew their place article by Charles Moore at the front, a why oh why from the otherwise excellent Douglas Murray, and in general still a retail offer to retired colonels and parish councillors.
I didn't get the young, bright, snappy, relevant element that is bringing droves of young people to the mag.
You need to read the online edition. Or listen to the podcasts. Or watch spectator tv. Or check its other digital offerings
The actual magazine is aimed specifically at the older and ageing readership that still reads paper magazines
I was always that that the rule of law and liberal democracy were fundamental European and US values. It seems, though, that owning the libs is now what matters most. All else must be sacrificed to secure that aim.
Trump's politics are indistinguishable from those of a centrist Democrat c. 1990.
The centrist Democrat in the 1990s was Bill Clinton. They are plainly different people with different policies
No, that was before Clinton transformed the Democrats into a party of corporate interests.
More Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it in both the Senate and House.
Surely people are allowed to change their minds? I am sure there was someone on here who rather bizarrely went from EU federalist to frothing swivel-eyed Brexiteer when the wind changed one day. Can't remember who that was though, can you?
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.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
'Supporting' is not just analysis.
Where is the support bit in wot he wrote:
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
The Russian oil industry is now "all in" because the bulk of it is situated west of the Urals and now in range of Ukraine drone strikes. There could perhaps have been back channel chats to keep power and oil facilities "off limits" to both sides. But that hasn't happened. The latest Ukrainian strikes on oil refining and storage capacity are taking it off-line for months. Maybe longer, as Russia doesn't have access to spares embargoed by the West. Whilst chips for missiles might get smuggled in from various of the Stans, trying to smuggle in a number of distillation towers isn't possible. So the capacity to refine crude oil is reducing at an alarming rate for Russia.
If it can't refine the oil, it has to store it until it can sell it. As sales to India are the latest to have ended, there's more need for storage - which storage the Ukrainians are destroying. If it can't store it, Russia has to stop production. Stopping production can be terminal to oil wells continuing production. It means they have to be reworked when production recommences. This process is very expensive and can take years - as was shown when the Soviet Union collapsed.
If Ukraine isn't leant on to stop hitting the Russian refining and storage capacity, it's hand in the negotaition gets stronger and stronger over time. No Russian oil = no money for Russia = no Russian army in Ukraine. Russia has planned its war on the expectation that Trump will step in to call for a ceasefire that fixes the current de facto borders. Russia is absolutely at the limit of holding its gains in Ukraine. Stockpiles of Soviet-era tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are largely gone; Russian production is a fraction of losses on the battlefield. Its infantry are now trying to get to the Ukrainian lines in comandeered cars. Few make it. Many more months of this will expose the Russian army for the hollowed out entity that remains.
Naturally I didn't read your post (keep it pithy would be my advice).
But if it says something like just one more push/Russia is going to run out of XYZ/any minute now he will fail/etc then give over.
Just today, Ukraine have hit a steel mill that produces 20% of Russia's steel...
As Topping says so what
They have lost and will be giving up land
They will be repaying America via mineral rights.
Its like Hitler claiming a triumph as he has a new heating system in his bunker in 1945
As one of the chief "Ukraine is going to win this" posters for the last 3 years.
It comes over as pathetic on the eve of defeat.
Zelensky will be fine mind
No doubt as a fan of Mr Thicky Corbyn you feel that the Ukrainians should just roll over. The reality is that the Russian war machine has proven itself to have erectile dysfunction. It has been given a very good kicking by a military power that is tiny by comparison. Putin Fans Please Explain.
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?
I'm also on my third party since 1995. But my defections are, in their own small way, a measure of the volatility on the centre-right. If the Tories were still sensibly conservative, I'd still be there. For that matter, had the Lib Dems had a more democratic (and politically viable) Brexit policy in 2019, I'd have moved directly across. And if the YP could have been made more functional and if the wider British and international picture wasn't so acute, I'd still be working there too - but it isn't and time is too critical to take the chance. Anyway, my objection to the Lib Dems is now in the past.
To be clear, I don't blame the electorate for being politically promiscuous: I blame the parties for not giving a solid, consistent, values-based programme.
Thanks. Certainly we cannot blame the public for being promiscuous when our politicians are flipping from party to party, sometimes for pure opportunism.
There's a reason people like Anna Soubry (Con-SDP-Con-Ind Grp-Change-Lab) or Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Con-Lab-SNP-Alba) aren't taken seriously.
The 'unique volatility' I would largely put at the door of politicians moving parties at a rate we haven't really experienced for a long time.
It is that unique? What of Roy Jenkins (Lab-SDP-LibDem) or Stratton Mills (UUP-Con-APNI) or Enoch Powell (Con-UUP) or Winston Churchill (Con-Lib-ind-Con) or Oswald Mosley (Conservative-Independent-Labour-New Party-Union Movement-National Party of Europe) or Dick Taverne (Lab-Democratic Labour-SDP-LibDem) or Jim Sillars (Lab-Scottish Labour Party-SNP)?
Tice is a twat, but it really is largely irrelevant at the moment. He is not the CoE.
RACHEL REEVES SHOULD RESIGN
She and her boss must be the first chancellor and Prime Minister who have seriously attempted to repeal the basic laws / rules of mathematics.
I am at a loss to decide which is the more absurd,
1) a Budget based upon the premise that such a thing is possible
2) "Independent" Civil Servants who allowed a budget in which the basic laws of Maths were apparently negotiable
3) A press and BBC which has gone along with that absurdity for seven months
or
4) Someone suddenly deciding having a lunatic Chancellor and disnumerate PM might not be a "good thing" and suddenly obsessing about matters which are serious but no more serious than they were last August when they first came to light
I do wonder how many farmers Starmer has to bankrupt to pay for his policies so far.
Didn't hear anything in Vance's speech I disagreed with.
Do you agree with all the fabrications?
(For example his claim that the 'Safe Zones' law around abortion clinics criminalises silent prayer in your own home - it does not.
Or his claim that Adam Smith-Connor was arrested for "praying silently for 3 minutes" outside a clinic. Actually he had refused to leave the area when required to do so by police for more than one and a half hours under the PSPO.
Or his claim that the Romanian election was cancelled by the Constitutional Court on the basis of weak evidence and a bit of social media advertising?)
This is the same problem as Trump when he pretends that the USA has supported Ukraine to the tune of $350bn vs Europe $50bn in a press conference, he is telling himself nonsense that could have come from a TikTok influencer / Telegraph ( eg the 'silent prayer in your own home' one), the Daily Express or GB News - then acting as if the made up account is true.
He is taking minor, made up or non-existent points and launching into tirades of baseless rhetoric.
I often think that this is because our UK media routinely deals in sensationalism and outright fiction to sex up stories, but given Vance's record, and the Trump regime's actions, I think it likely he knows exactly what he is doing.
The one point I found interesting was his assertion that Europe needs to work out what they are defending FOR - ie a positive vision. He is right on that.
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.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
'Supporting' is not just analysis.
Where is the support bit in wot he wrote:
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
The Russian oil industry is now "all in" because the bulk of it is situated west of the Urals and now in range of Ukraine drone strikes. There could perhaps have been back channel chats to keep power and oil facilities "off limits" to both sides. But that hasn't happened. The latest Ukrainian strikes on oil refining and storage capacity are taking it off-line for months. Maybe longer, as Russia doesn't have access to spares embargoed by the West. Whilst chips for missiles might get smuggled in from various of the Stans, trying to smuggle in a number of distillation towers isn't possible. So the capacity to refine crude oil is reducing at an alarming rate for Russia.
If it can't refine the oil, it has to store it until it can sell it. As sales to India are the latest to have ended, there's more need for storage - which storage the Ukrainians are destroying. If it can't store it, Russia has to stop production. Stopping production can be terminal to oil wells continuing production. It means they have to be reworked when production recommences. This process is very expensive and can take years - as was shown when the Soviet Union collapsed.
If Ukraine isn't leant on to stop hitting the Russian refining and storage capacity, it's hand in the negotaition gets stronger and stronger over time. No Russian oil = no money for Russia = no Russian army in Ukraine. Russia has planned its war on the expectation that Trump will step in to call for a ceasefire that fixes the current de facto borders. Russia is absolutely at the limit of holding its gains in Ukraine. Stockpiles of Soviet-era tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are largely gone; Russian production is a fraction of losses on the battlefield. Its infantry are now trying to get to the Ukrainian lines in comandeered cars. Few make it. Many more months of this will expose the Russian army for the hollowed out entity that remains.
Naturally I didn't read your post (keep it pithy would be my advice).
But if it says something like just one more push/Russia is going to run out of XYZ/any minute now he will fail/etc then give over.
Just today, Ukraine have hit a steel mill that produces 20% of Russia's steel...
As Topping says so what
They have lost and will be giving up land
They will be repaying America via mineral rights.
Its like Hitler claiming a triumph as he has a new heating system in his bunker in 1945
As one of the chief "Ukraine is going to win this" posters for the last 3 years.
It comes over as pathetic on the eve of defeat.
Zelensky will be fine mind
No doubt as a fan of Mr Thicky Corbyn you feel that the Ukrainians should just roll over. The reality is that the Russian war machine has proven itself to have erectile dysfunction. It has been given a very good kicking by a military power that is tiny by comparison. Putin Fans Please Explain.
Slava Ukraini and fuck the Putin Appeasers.
Go and lick your wounds for the next few months mate you lost.
Who needs Corbyn when you have the POTUS with Corbynite foreign Policies for the next 4 years.
To me Trump will have immediate NATO membership for Ukraine if Putin tries any further expansion but Centrist thickies wont have thought of that.
I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.
The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.
This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.
Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades
Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.
My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.
Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
Worth remembering as far as pensions go that when the National Assistance Act 1948 which established the modern State Pension was passed, average male life expectency was 64.8 years. It was no accident that the pension age was set at 65.
Bismarck has entered the chat.
The state pension is effectively an asset worth £250k per person.
Or effectively, a liability of £250k per person.
Sure if my 50 years of NI was in a private pension it would hav ebeen far more substantial and covered private health as well.
I think we should not be too parochial about this. Pretty much the whole western world is suffering from low growth right now, it is not just our inept politicians that are struggling for the answers.
The reasons for this are complicated but clearly the overwhelming debt arising from long periods of overspending is catching up with us. We are struggling to keep demand up. We can't afford to invest for our own future, we are dependent upon the generosity of others. In addition we face a lot of challenges like a need to do something radical about our defence systems and a public sector, as we were discussing last night, that absorbs ever more funds with no additional results.
This is not just happening here. The particular problems may vary from country to country but the overall gloom is the same. I fear that our economic model, based on ever greater boosts of public spending funded by debt to get short term demand in the hope that that sparks wider growth may have run out of road.
Indeed. And we’ve also run out of road in terms of mass immigration- which has been our “go-to” for two decades
Public won’t take any more. Britain is mutinous
Mass immigration is another, largely futile attempt to keep the Ponzi scheme going. When old age pensions were introduced most recipients would live a relatively brief time, certainly in comparison with their working history. That is no longer true.
My recently departed mother in law worked at a modest level until her late 50s when she retired because her husband had already retired at 55. She lived to 89. Given the breaks when raising her children she received pension for nearly as long as she worked. Her husband left school at 14 and started work. He retired 41 years later as an electrical and mechanical engineer and then lived another 26 years before dying of Alzheimer's.
Neither of these is even remotely sustainable unless you import a lot more young worker (or marks I believe they are called) to buy into the scheme. Many in the UK may not like the other consequences of mass immigration but they may not like the alternatives either.
Worth remembering as far as pensions go that when the National Assistance Act 1948 which established the modern State Pension was passed, average male life expectency was 64.8 years. It was no accident that the pension age was set at 65.
It's also worth remembering that employers are reluctant to employ applicants over the age of 50 or so. Once an older person loses a job, it's much more likely they will for all practical purposes be viewed as unemployable. So it may boil down to a choice between paying benefits as pension or as unemployment.
Good morning, everybody.
We treat age as far too decisive, since it varies so much between individuals. This gloomy thread partly overlooks the improvements in health over time, to the point that the average 65-year-old is perfectly capable of working longer. I got another job without too much trouble after losing my seat at age 60, and have only just more or less definitely retired at 75. Certainly maintaining pensions at 65 (or even younger) makes little sense in general - rather, we should encourage people to look at their own individual conditions, with an incentive to carry on working to age 70 or so if there's little physical reason not to.
Tell that to a manual worker liek steel erector, brickie, joiner etc, they are knackered well before existing pension age. Not everybody has cushy jobs in Westminster feasting on subsidesed meals and champagne with a few hours at a desk thrown in.
Comments
Thought experiment: Rachel Reeves (or, for that matter, whoever might be Chancellor in a theoretical right-leaning Government) finds £10bn down the back of the Treasury sofa. Does it get spent on (a) the army, (b) the navy, or (c) bungs for middle class pensioners, to be spaffed away on Saga cruises and luxury dog food?
If Putin gets tempted to conquer the Baltic States then he will get them. This country won't be serious about defence until the Russian army has reached the Rhine, and Britain and France have no cards to play other than to threaten a nuclear holocaust in which absolutely everyone dies horribly. Trident, assuming it has been maintained in working order, is all we have left.
Many thanks to @Theuniondivvie for suggesting Sky Atlantic’s Mussolini. Unusual but good. And timely
Russia's advances in the east have slowed to a snail's pace, at horrendous cost. Very much WWI figures. Remember how that ended for the Russian regime. They didn't lose because the Germans occupied Petrograd; they lost because civil society and the army broke.
Bullshit needs to be called out.
I didn't get the young, bright, snappy, relevant element that is bringing droves of young people to the mag.
NEW THREAD
They have lost and will be giving up land
They will be repaying America via mineral rights.
Its like Hitler claiming a triumph as he has a new heating system in his bunker in 1945
As one of the chief "Ukraine is going to win this" posters for the last 3 years.
It comes over as pathetic on the eve of defeat.
Zelensky will be fine mind
The actual magazine is aimed specifically at the older and ageing readership that still reads paper magazines
Slava Ukraini and fuck the Putin Appeasers.
RACHEL REEVES SHOULD RESIGN
I am at a loss to decide which is the more absurd,
1) a Budget based upon the premise that such a thing is possible
2) "Independent" Civil Servants who allowed a budget in which the basic laws of Maths were apparently negotiable
3) A press and BBC which has gone along with that absurdity for seven months
or
4) Someone suddenly deciding having a lunatic Chancellor and disnumerate PM might not be a "good thing" and suddenly obsessing about matters which are serious but no more serious than they were last August when they first came to light
I do wonder how many farmers Starmer has to bankrupt to pay for his policies so far.
(For example his claim that the 'Safe Zones' law around abortion clinics criminalises silent prayer in your own home - it does not.
Or his claim that Adam Smith-Connor was arrested for "praying silently for 3 minutes" outside a clinic. Actually he had refused to leave the area when required to do so by police for more than one and a half hours under the PSPO.
Or his claim that the Romanian election was cancelled by the Constitutional Court on the basis of weak evidence and a bit of social media advertising?)
This is the same problem as Trump when he pretends that the USA has supported Ukraine to the tune of $350bn vs Europe $50bn in a press conference, he is telling himself nonsense that could have come from a TikTok influencer / Telegraph ( eg the 'silent prayer in your own home' one), the Daily Express or GB News - then acting as if the made up account is true.
He is taking minor, made up or non-existent points and launching into tirades of baseless rhetoric.
I often think that this is because our UK media routinely deals in sensationalism and outright fiction to sex up stories, but given Vance's record, and the Trump regime's actions, I think it likely he knows exactly what he is doing.
The one point I found interesting was his assertion that Europe needs to work out what they are defending FOR - ie a positive vision. He is right on that.
That WOULD be interesting
He knows he is next in line if she goes
https://x.com/PeterTa06662925/status/1850797388182458464
Who needs Corbyn when you have the POTUS with Corbynite foreign Policies for the next 4 years.
To me Trump will have immediate NATO membership for Ukraine if Putin tries any further expansion but Centrist thickies wont have thought of that.
As there was an investigation somebody clearly did
She is silent on fake dentist appointments
ElvesUsonians are sailing back to their own promised* land.*Alternative views of the promise are available.