I can't see a reason why Reform couldn't poll 34-35% in a GE. They'd probably pip Labour and with tactical voting the other way (big ifs) they could govern in coalition/C&S with the Tories.
But, Farage would need to get a credible economic offer together and a serious foreign policy to do it first.
If he's sensible, he would try to overcompensate and take a very strongly pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian stance.
Any ambiguity on his position will be attacked ruthlessly by the other three major parties if Russia is still a major concern in 4 years. And it won't be to Farage's political advantage to be perceived as such.
Reform are now in a polling position where 'being in government' is a realistic possibility. That will come with greater scrutiny over their full range of policies.
This is a category error.
Reform's policies do not matter. Reform is NOTA. Reform voters think that Britain is broken and that the old parties broke it. Reform voters think Reform at least seems to be listening and can hardly make things worse.
But the next election is four years off. There is plenty of time for Labour and Conservatives to start listening to voters and change tack accordingly.
For the Conservatives, this is easy. Either persuade Kemi to fix PMQs or get yet another new leader in for the next six months or so, and then another and then another.
For Labour, and therefore the government, things are more complicated but at least it can change the facts on the ground. Yes, it is great that Labour has grand schemes that will come to fruition in the decades to come, like Net Zero, the green industrial strategy and Heathrow's third runway, but people are hurting now. The government needs to focus on crime, especially street crime. It needs to fix NHS dentistry and GP appointments. It needs to worry less about the numbers not looking for jobs and focus instead on why active jobseekers complain they cannot find work.
The last thread talked about reshuffles. Well, maybe, but if you look at those said to be in most danger – Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy, Bridget Phillipson – what they have in common is they all self-identify as ladies, and Labour and in particular Starmer is already said to have a woman problem. There might be sideways moves but sackings or even demotions are less likely.
In parallels with Cameron's hegemony, Ed Miliband is IDS, pursuing his own agenda that comes from think tanks beyond the party, the green industrial revolution. Bridget Phillipson is Andrew Lansley, going far beyond what anyone expected to upend what looked to be solid institutions requiring at most a lick of paint – schools in her case, the NHS in his. Ending the maths and Latin programmes in the middle of the year seems churlish, and even if ending freedom for Goveite free schools sounds attractive to the left, many will remember Academies came from Labour itself.
It seems every PM it is claimed has a woman problem. Brown (tick), Cameron (tick), Boris (tick), Truss (triple tick), now Starmer. I know we get polling that seems to show this, but then they can't be that against those leaders as Cameron, Boris and Starmer won easily.
Won easily by what definition? Cameron turned clear poll leads into scraping a hung parliament and needing the LibDems to prop him up. Boris benefitted from Nigel Farage standing down his candidates in Tory seats. Starmer won a landslide in seats but just one third (almost exactly) of the popular vote.
Cameron woman problem was the talk leading up to 2015 GE, which Tories won comfortably. Boris won comfortably. Yes nobody really likes Starmer, but I don't think that is gender based, he just isn't very likable.
In 2015 Cameron won largely because the LibDems imploded and the SNP wiped out Labour in Scotland. There was a small swing against the Conservatives in England.
But as I say, I remember there were loads of polls that stated Cameron had this huge issue among female voters, but I seemed to remember the post election analysis showed that didn't actually turn out to be turn at the ballot box.
I am not sure with Starmer making various ministers a man or a woman will make much difference, they have bet the farm on growth and house building. They would be better getting decent people to do a good job rather than worry that he sacked a crap one because they were a woman.
Labour still has a problem with not trusting a woman to be PM. Or even party leader.
Just the half century behind the Conservatives.
But the Conservatives have had four, and they have all been disasters.
I can't see a reason why Reform couldn't poll 34-35% in a GE. They'd probably pip Labour and with tactical voting the other way (big ifs) they could govern in coalition/C&S with the Tories.
But, Farage would need to get a credible economic offer together and a serious foreign policy to do it first.
If he's sensible, he would try to overcompensate and take a very strongly pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian stance.
Any ambiguity on his position will be attacked ruthlessly by the other three major parties if Russia is still a major concern in 4 years. And it won't be to Farage's political advantage to be perceived as such.
Reform are now in a polling position where 'being in government' is a realistic possibility. That will come with greater scrutiny over their full range of policies.
This is a category error.
Reform's policies do not matter. Reform is NOTA. Reform voters think that Britain is broken and that the old parties broke it. Reform voters think Reform at least seems to be listening and can hardly make things worse.
But the next election is four years off. There is plenty of time for Labour and Conservatives to start listening to voters and change tack accordingly.
For the Conservatives, this is easy. Either persuade Kemi to fix PMQs or get yet another new leader in for the next six months or so, and then another and then another.
For Labour, and therefore the government, things are more complicated but at least it can change the facts on the ground. Yes, it is great that Labour has grand schemes that will come to fruition in the decades to come, like Net Zero, the green industrial strategy and Heathrow's third runway, but people are hurting now. The government needs to focus on crime, especially street crime. It needs to fix NHS dentistry and GP appointments. It needs to worry less about the numbers not looking for jobs and focus instead on why active jobseekers complain they cannot find work.
The last thread talked about reshuffles. Well, maybe, but if you look at those said to be in most danger – Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy, Bridget Phillipson – what they have in common is they all self-identify as ladies, and Labour and in particular Starmer is already said to have a woman problem. There might be sideways moves but sackings or even demotions are less likely.
In parallels with Cameron's hegemony, Ed Miliband is IDS, pursuing his own agenda that comes from think tanks beyond the party, the green industrial revolution. Bridget Phillipson is Andrew Lansley, going far beyond what anyone expected to upend what looked to be solid institutions requiring at most a lick of paint – schools in her case, the NHS in his. Ending the maths and Latin programmes in the middle of the year seems churlish, and even if ending freedom for Goveite free schools sounds attractive to the left, many will remember Academies came from Labour itself.
It seems every PM it is claimed has a woman problem. Brown (tick), Cameron (tick), Boris (tick), Truss (triple tick), now Starmer. I know we get polling that seems to show this, but then they can't be that against those leaders as Cameron, Boris and Starmer won easily.
Won easily by what definition? Cameron turned clear poll leads into scraping a hung parliament and needing the LibDems to prop him up. Boris benefitted from Nigel Farage standing down his candidates in Tory seats. Starmer won a landslide in seats but just one third (almost exactly) of the popular vote.
Cameron woman problem was the talk leading up to 2015 GE, which Tories won comfortably. Boris won comfortably. Yes nobody really likes Starmer, but I don't think that is gender based, he just isn't very likable.
In 2015 Cameron won largely because the LibDems imploded and the SNP wiped out Labour in Scotland. There was a small swing against the Conservatives in England.
But as I say, I remember there were loads of polls that stated Cameron had this huge issue among female voters, but I seemed to remember the post election analysis showed that didn't actually turn out to be turn at the ballot box.
I am not sure with Starmer making various ministers a man or a woman will make much difference, they have bet the farm on growth and house building. They would be better getting decent people to do a good job rather than worry that he sacked a crap one because they were a woman.
Labour still has a problem with not trusting a woman to be PM. Or even party leader.
Just the half century behind the Conservatives.
But the Conservatives have had four, and they have all been disasters.
That doesn't really differentiate them from their male counterparts though. Just as Swinson was not noticeably worse than Farron or Clegg.
Anybody fancy a few months in the Ukraine every year on the taxpayer?
Fortunately I believe the Russian army is a little depleted too
Russia will spend the next four years rebuilding their shattered army. Britain? Well, at least we are now advertising for recruits for all three services, though the RAF is looking for soldiers not pilots.
From gov.uk:
Total benefit expenditure increased from £233.8bn in FYE 2023 to £266.2bn in FYE 2024. This was an increase of £32.4bn (13.9%) which was mainly due to:
*State Pension expenditure increasing by £14.2bn (12.9%), from £109.7bn in FYE 2023 to £123.9bn in FYE 2024
*Universal Credit expenditure increasing by £8.5bn (19.6%), from £43.4bn in FYE 2023 to £51.9bn in FYE 2024
*Personal Independence Payment expenditure increasing by £3.9bn (22.0%), from £17.7bn in FYE 2023 to £21.6bn in FYE 2024
*Cost of Living Payments expenditure increasing by £1.8bn (21.4%), from £8.4bn in FYE 2023 to £10.2bn in FYE 2024
£30bn per year is about what we would need to increase the defence budget by to match American levels as a share of GDP. Nothing anywhere remotely close to that is going to happen. Most of the additional revenue Reeves has generated from the last budget is going to go straight on social security. Even if Labour backbenchers could be talked and cajoled into a fresh round of austerity freezes on working age benefits, nobody (especially after the WFA stropfest) is going to dare touch pensioners again, and the triple lock is running completely out of control.
If there's any cash left after ramping benefits, it'll be spent trying to stop the NHS completely imploding. The Government's other major spending commitments include its estate of crumbling, dilapidated schools, police that don't bother to investigate whole categories of crime, and courts that take years to deliver justice, all areas that have had all the fat and much of the meat stripped off them already. There's simply no money left for defence, and the Government is completely terrified of the political consequences of further tax rises in a country where half the population has nothing left to give and the other half will immediately stamp off in a huff if asked for more.
Military recruitment will be at token levels and the Government will probably struggle to fill the ranks anyway, given the state of physical decrepitude of the predominantly fat and sedentary pool of potential recruits, and the very low pay on offer to new starters: the MoD has missed its targets on this front in almost every year since the start of the Coalition in 2010. There will be no major increases in personnel numbers or in investment in expensive kit, beyond what was already planned. The notion that any degree of threat from Russia, or strategic withdrawal by the United States, will prompt a fundamental revision of priorities by this or any other likely UK Government is for the birds.
I think quite a lot of people might have sympathy with the Vance view on migration/free speech.
But this is a domestic concern, not one for a foreigner to lecture other countries about. Especially when AP journalists have just been banned from Air Force One for not parroting Trump's Gulf of Mexico name change. And doubly especially so given the venue was a discussion about security/defence.
But instead of addressing Russia invading a sovereign European nation state, Vance banged on about something entirely different.
As others have noted, it was aimed entirely at a domestic audience.
Vance: You europeans have killed free speech. It's a fucking disgrace and is the end of days. I cannot tell you how angry I am and what a mistake this is.
US government under Trump: RFK to ban tv adverts for pharmaceuticals.
Not to mention a US government banning a news organisation because it refuses to call Gulf of X the Gulf of Y.
Vance and Trump as free speech advocates is clearly nonsense but pharma ads is the wrong stick to beat them with. My understanding is that the medical profession thinks banning pharma ads is good and that this could be something RFK does right by accident. The ideal being that you prescribe the appropriate medicine without the patient demanding the one they've seen on TV.
It’s going to be a long 4 years. Woke up to Radio 4 playing an extended excerpt of Vance’s speech - far longer than you’d typically get played for any domestic or European politician - and then a lengthy discussion of the content, as if it were somehow a meaningful topic worth debating rather than some angry bloke on the internet who somehow made it to VP.
They then cut to a clearly flustered woman from the pregnancy advisory service who couldn’t get a straight sentence out about abortion clinics. It was like I’d woken up in a British-accented Alabama.
I hope the BBC’s sanewashing of Trump and their insistence on shoving him and his acolytes in our faces ad infinitum is going to ease up at some point. The media doesn’t seem to have tuned to the requisite level of disdain yet. You’d think after 2020 they’d be prepared.
I think quite a lot of people might have sympathy with the Vance view on migration/free speech.
But this is a domestic concern, not one for a foreigner to lecture other countries about. Especially when AP journalists have just been banned from Air Force One for not parroting Trump's Gulf of Mexico name change. And doubly especially so given the venue was a discussion about security/defence.
But instead of addressing Russia invading a sovereign European nation state, Vance banged on about something entirely different.
As others have noted, it was aimed entirely at a domestic audience.
You have to feel sorry for Vance. He’s trapped in a bad political marriage. He has to create a scene when he goes round the neighbours to get attention at home. His spouse appears to be in love with another.
The Indian economy is about to be devastated by AI. It will kill all the outsourced workers - the programmers. Then it will kill their call centres. Then it will kill *anyone* who works on a screen from abroad. Then it will kill anyone who works from home, even domestically. Then it will kill 50% of white collar workers overall
That’s in the next 1-4 years
I just want to get my next predictions in, after my success with Ukraine
The question is what form will the opposition to this take.
That the ongoing and near-future deskilling, dumbing down, capital concentration, and labour market reduction have been given a name - and a two-letter name at that - may turn out to be a weakness.
Who with any humanity in them, who with a soul, isn't open to the call "Fuck AI to stay alive"?
Anyone campaigning against AI who isn't using AI is giving themselves a handicap, so it's a self-defeating proposition.
Asymmetric warfare.
How will the AI side crush those who in their opposition to it don't use AI? What specific weapons will they use?
CND didn't use nukes. Okay, CND lost, but the reason wasn't its omission to nuke up.
Maybe that's where they went wrong. If the ladies of Greenham Common had an independent nuclear deterrent, they wouldn't have been so easy to ignore.
I was hoping for a less flippant response from you. I am interested in your point of view if you think opposition to AI can't really happen in a way that gets anywhere.
Perplexity.ai (oh the irony!) tells me there are >1bn white collar workers in the world. Killing or even lumpenising half of them within the space of a few years would be a LOT of people.
I'm not trying to push optimism. Just saying there will be opposition in some form.
(On the Greenham women, a lot could be said, but they weren't easy to ignore and many have heard of them and remember them 40 years later. CND did fail, as I said, but they were still an opposition.)
Can everyone in this mini-thread stop confusing “AI” with “LLMs”?
It’s all very well bleating on about immigration and when people aren’t feeling good about things, scapegoating certain groups is the stock response of the politically ambitious and feeble.
None of this will stop people trying to move from parts of the world where life remains nasty, brutish and short to those regions which, by contrast, look oases of prosperity and calm. Many are simply coming to make a better life for themselves, to work, to earn money, to have a nice place to live - so many of the things we take for granted.
No one has offered a coherent response on illegal immigration - yes, you can keep tightening the rules on legal immigration until you reach a “one in, one out” position.
What does “Fortress Europe” look like? Do we re-imagine NATO as an anti-migrant force patrolling the Mediterranean? What about a nice big wall or two?That’s where you end up if you are determined to end “migration”.
Then you have those who are already here…..
Illegal immigration remains a small proportion of immigration to the UK. It’s larger in the US, but still less than a quarter.
It’s all very well bleating on about immigration and when people aren’t feeling good about things, scapegoating certain groups is the stock response of the politically ambitious and feeble.
None of this will stop people trying to move from parts of the world where life remains nasty, brutish and short to those regions which, by contrast, look oases of prosperity and calm. Many are simply coming to make a better life for themselves, to work, to earn money, to have a nice place to live - so many of the things we take for granted.
No one has offered a coherent response on illegal immigration - yes, you can keep tightening the rules on legal immigration until you reach a “one in, one out” position.
What does “Fortress Europe” look like? Do we re-imagine NATO as an anti-migrant force patrolling the Mediterranean? What about a nice big wall or two?That’s where you end up if you are determined to end “migration”.
Then you have those who are already here…..
Illegal immigration remains a small proportion of immigration to the UK. It’s larger in the US, but still less than a quarter.
The irony is that in making life harder for poor countries, America increases the flow of migrants and refugees.
I think that Trump and Vance just seriously damaged American leadership of the West, and certainly the European part of it. I had a few beers with a friend who is a senior Estonian politician. The commentary from the MAGA crew was, to a degree predicted. What was not predicted was the naked contempt for all of the EU members and indeed also the UK. However, the economy of the Nordic Baltic 7 is basically the same size as that of Russia and the view he put forward is that in many ways the MAGA mob have just done Europe a massive favour. "We have no choice, we have to work together", There are already significant discussions as to what now needs to be done. The coordination of the JEF states: Nordic/Baltic, the Netherlands and the UK is being discussed and it seems that Poland too will probably join quite quickly. So, with large scale defence expenditure on the way, the view is that the Nordic/Baltic region will be more than capable of seeing off any Russian attack without calling on the US. The US leverage could fall surprisingly quickly.
As for wider EU-US relations, there are already significant discussions about what to do if the US is going to stab Ukraine in the back. Again the view is that if the US is attacking the EU, then the EU no longer needs to accommodate US wishes in a variety of spheres, including tech regulation and finance. The contempt that Vance expressed is not a one way street. The EU will hit back very hard if Trump attempts to hurt global trade in ways that Brussels deems unacceptable.
So, "it begins". The EU economy is larger and more integrated into global trade than the US economy. Vance´s astonishingly ill judged speech is going to blow back to Washington in ways that the MAGA people do not even begin to expect. "Its sad, but is a matter of survival, we can not allow the US to compromise our hard fought freedom on a mere whim, and we wont"
So, I think Putin and Trump are going to get a few nasty surprises in the coming weeks.
Depressing that you got 12 "Likes" for this absurdly prolonged burp of pomposity, which is - inter alia - based on a a flat-out lie. The EU's economy is not bigger than the USA. The USA is larger whether you express it as GDP by PPP or Nominal
I think there is going to be a major falling out across the Atlantic now. There is profound anger across the European capitals after vance's rude and confrontational speech. Even the uk right wing news has had enough.... what a fucking tragedy. What the heck is going on with the US???
It’s going to be a long 4 years. Woke up to Radio 4 playing an extended excerpt of Vance’s speech - far longer than you’d typically get played for any domestic or European politician - and then a lengthy discussion of the content, as if it were somehow a meaningful topic worth debating rather than some angry bloke on the internet who somehow made it to VP.
They then cut to a clearly flustered woman from the pregnancy advisory service who couldn’t get a straight sentence out about abortion clinics. It was like I’d woken up in a British-accented Alabama.
I hope the BBC’s sanewashing of Trump and their insistence on shoving him and his acolytes in our faces ad infinitum is going to ease up at some point. The media doesn’t seem to have tuned to the requisite level of disdain yet. You’d think after 2020 they’d be prepared.
Alternatively Trump and Vance are kicking off a much-delayed, much-needed alt-right revolution in Europe
Vance potentially lit the touchpaper yesterday
The sense of bewildered fear on this forum is palpable, and delicious
I think there is going to be a major falling out across the Atlantic now. There is profound anger across the European capitals after vance's rude and confrontational speech. Even the uk right wing news has had enough.... what a fucking tragedy. What the heck is going on with the US???
Look at the comments. 2000 and counting. 95% of them agreeing, vehemently, with Vance, and brutally insulting the journalist
The Telegraph has badly misjudged its readers, here
I have some sympathy, quite a lot, actually, with the migration/free speech angle.
But that wasn't the point of the gathering. Sure, you can turn up at an AA meeting and lecture everyone about supply side economics while taking swigs from your hip flask, but they'll think you're a dick.
It’s going to be a long 4 years. Woke up to Radio 4 playing an extended excerpt of Vance’s speech - far longer than you’d typically get played for any domestic or European politician - and then a lengthy discussion of the content, as if it were somehow a meaningful topic worth debating rather than some angry bloke on the internet who somehow made it to VP.
They then cut to a clearly flustered woman from the pregnancy advisory service who couldn’t get a straight sentence out about abortion clinics. It was like I’d woken up in a British-accented Alabama.
I hope the BBC’s sanewashing of Trump and their insistence on shoving him and his acolytes in our faces ad infinitum is going to ease up at some point. The media doesn’t seem to have tuned to the requisite level of disdain yet. You’d think after 2020 they’d be prepared.
Alternatively Trump and Vance are kicking off a much-delayed, much-needed alt-right revolution in Europe
Vance potentially lit the touchpaper yesterday
The sense of bewildered fear on this forum is palpable, and delicious
Nah. It was about generating headlines back home in the battle for supremacy in the Trump administration. The sort of trick you can play once or twice.
Vance: You europeans have killed free speech. It's a fucking disgrace and is the end of days. I cannot tell you how angry I am and what a mistake this is.
US government under Trump: RFK to ban tv adverts for pharmaceuticals.
Not to mention a US government banning a news organisation because it refuses to call Gulf of X the Gulf of Y.
Vance and Trump as free speech advocates is clearly nonsense but pharma ads is the wrong stick to beat them with. My understanding is that the medical profession thinks banning pharma ads is good and that this could be something RFK does right by accident. The ideal being that you prescribe the appropriate medicine without the patient demanding the one they've seen on TV.
Incidentally it also takes a slug of money away from the MSM
I think that Trump and Vance just seriously damaged American leadership of the West, and certainly the European part of it. I had a few beers with a friend who is a senior Estonian politician. The commentary from the MAGA crew was, to a degree predicted. What was not predicted was the naked contempt for all of the EU members and indeed also the UK. However, the economy of the Nordic Baltic 7 is basically the same size as that of Russia and the view he put forward is that in many ways the MAGA mob have just done Europe a massive favour. "We have no choice, we have to work together", There are already significant discussions as to what now needs to be done. The coordination of the JEF states: Nordic/Baltic, the Netherlands and the UK is being discussed and it seems that Poland too will probably join quite quickly. So, with large scale defence expenditure on the way, the view is that the Nordic/Baltic region will be more than capable of seeing off any Russian attack without calling on the US. The US leverage could fall surprisingly quickly.
As for wider EU-US relations, there are already significant discussions about what to do if the US is going to stab Ukraine in the back. Again the view is that if the US is attacking the EU, then the EU no longer needs to accommodate US wishes in a variety of spheres, including tech regulation and finance. The contempt that Vance expressed is not a one way street. The EU will hit back very hard if Trump attempts to hurt global trade in ways that Brussels deems unacceptable.
So, "it begins". The EU economy is larger and more integrated into global trade than the US economy. Vance´s astonishingly ill judged speech is going to blow back to Washington in ways that the MAGA people do not even begin to expect. "Its sad, but is a matter of survival, we can not allow the US to compromise our hard fought freedom on a mere whim, and we wont"
So, I think Putin and Trump are going to get a few nasty surprises in the coming weeks.
Depressing that you got 12 "Likes" for this absurdly prolonged burp of pomposity, which is - inter alia - based on a a flat-out lie. The EU's economy is not bigger than the USA. The USA is larger whether you express it as GDP by PPP or Nominal
Fail
Seriously. How come not one of you noticed the massive lie in the middle of this bloviating nonsense?
The EU is SMALLER than the USA, economically
I'm going to hazard a guess. You're all so bed-wettingly affeared of Vance and Trump you are eagerly seizing on anything that confirms your worldview, and if it has 19 supercilious, misinformed, sophomoric paragraphs rather than just 2 then you will LIKE IT even more. Pathetic
This site is in for a hard few years if even the relatively intelligent PB lefties (there must be a couple) are reduced to liking or spouting this adolescent wanksplaining drivel
It’s going to be a long 4 years. Woke up to Radio 4 playing an extended excerpt of Vance’s speech - far longer than you’d typically get played for any domestic or European politician - and then a lengthy discussion of the content, as if it were somehow a meaningful topic worth debating rather than some angry bloke on the internet who somehow made it to VP.
They then cut to a clearly flustered woman from the pregnancy advisory service who couldn’t get a straight sentence out about abortion clinics. It was like I’d woken up in a British-accented Alabama.
I hope the BBC’s sanewashing of Trump and their insistence on shoving him and his acolytes in our faces ad infinitum is going to ease up at some point. The media doesn’t seem to have tuned to the requisite level of disdain yet. You’d think after 2020 they’d be prepared.
Alternatively Trump and Vance are kicking off a much-delayed, much-needed alt-right revolution in Europe
Vance potentially lit the touchpaper yesterday
The sense of bewildered fear on this forum is palpable, and delicious
Enjoy the next 4 years, there will be plentiful trolling opportunities. You’ll need to discover a newfound passion for abortion control though, given that seems to be Vance’s major focus for the UK.
It’s going to be a long 4 years. Woke up to Radio 4 playing an extended excerpt of Vance’s speech - far longer than you’d typically get played for any domestic or European politician - and then a lengthy discussion of the content, as if it were somehow a meaningful topic worth debating rather than some angry bloke on the internet who somehow made it to VP.
They then cut to a clearly flustered woman from the pregnancy advisory service who couldn’t get a straight sentence out about abortion clinics. It was like I’d woken up in a British-accented Alabama.
I hope the BBC’s sanewashing of Trump and their insistence on shoving him and his acolytes in our faces ad infinitum is going to ease up at some point. The media doesn’t seem to have tuned to the requisite level of disdain yet. You’d think after 2020 they’d be prepared.
Alternatively Trump and Vance are kicking off a much-delayed, much-needed alt-right revolution in Europe
Vance potentially lit the touchpaper yesterday
The sense of bewildered fear on this forum is palpable, and delicious
Nah. It was about generating headlines back home in the battle for supremacy in the Trump administration. The sort of trick you can play once or twice.
Tbf he’s kicked off a quivering in the prostates of the Telegraph readership and a D’Annunzio wannabe in far off Bangkok. How relevant that is to the real world is unclear.
It’s all very well bleating on about immigration and when people aren’t feeling good about things, scapegoating certain groups is the stock response of the politically ambitious and feeble.
None of this will stop people trying to move from parts of the world where life remains nasty, brutish and short to those regions which, by contrast, look oases of prosperity and calm. Many are simply coming to make a better life for themselves, to work, to earn money, to have a nice place to live - so many of the things we take for granted.
No one has offered a coherent response on illegal immigration - yes, you can keep tightening the rules on legal immigration until you reach a “one in, one out” position.
What does “Fortress Europe” look like? Do we re-imagine NATO as an anti-migrant force patrolling the Mediterranean? What about a nice big wall or two?That’s where you end up if you are determined to end “migration”.
Then you have those who are already here…..
Illegal immigration remains a small proportion of immigration to the UK. It’s larger in the US, but still less than a quarter.
It’s about 3% I believe but out there in the electorate the perception is very different as it is with levels of crime and the number of Muslims in the UK.
I think that Trump and Vance just seriously damaged American leadership of the West, and certainly the European part of it. I had a few beers with a friend who is a senior Estonian politician. The commentary from the MAGA crew was, to a degree predicted. What was not predicted was the naked contempt for all of the EU members and indeed also the UK. However, the economy of the Nordic Baltic 7 is basically the same size as that of Russia and the view he put forward is that in many ways the MAGA mob have just done Europe a massive favour. "We have no choice, we have to work together", There are already significant discussions as to what now needs to be done. The coordination of the JEF states: Nordic/Baltic, the Netherlands and the UK is being discussed and it seems that Poland too will probably join quite quickly. So, with large scale defence expenditure on the way, the view is that the Nordic/Baltic region will be more than capable of seeing off any Russian attack without calling on the US. The US leverage could fall surprisingly quickly.
As for wider EU-US relations, there are already significant discussions about what to do if the US is going to stab Ukraine in the back. Again the view is that if the US is attacking the EU, then the EU no longer needs to accommodate US wishes in a variety of spheres, including tech regulation and finance. The contempt that Vance expressed is not a one way street. The EU will hit back very hard if Trump attempts to hurt global trade in ways that Brussels deems unacceptable.
So, "it begins". The EU economy is larger and more integrated into global trade than the US economy. Vance´s astonishingly ill judged speech is going to blow back to Washington in ways that the MAGA people do not even begin to expect. "Its sad, but is a matter of survival, we can not allow the US to compromise our hard fought freedom on a mere whim, and we wont"
So, I think Putin and Trump are going to get a few nasty surprises in the coming weeks.
I'm pretty sure Trump 2.0 will end in an economic firestorm. He hasn't a fucking clue about the world, trade or economics. Or indeed science and technology.
He wants to drill shale like there's no tomorrow even though the world wont need to buy his shale because the caravan has moved on.
Hopefully the storm will only be in America.
lols at the thought that the eu is more integrated into world trade its a protectionist overregulated little backwater that even now is having to backpeddle on ai regulation because everyone else is laughing at them
External trade as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher for the EU than the US. Check the figures for yourself.
But it really doesn’t mean that the EU is better situated to deal with a trade war. Or that its economy is stronger. And in any event, such a thing would benefit none of us.
But it’s also true that Trump seems to be doing his level best to fall out with most of America’s allies.
Its external trade gdp being higher currently is irrelevant....eu trade as a percentage falls year on year on the basis of world trade....its a dying wannabe empire that failed to even get to the empire stage. If it was a duck I would be considering which sauce to serve it with
dying an awful lot slower than the UK for sure. Only morons could think such crap.
As predicted on this very PB, this is framed across the Atlantic as a threat to American national security.
And what Trump and Musk is doing is a threat to our national security.
They should sort themselves out. Until then, they can f**k right off.
Nice thought but unfortunately we need them more than they need us.
Do we?
It's probably touch and go, and walking lots of lines very carefully. We are very integrated, as we all know.
What do we do if the USA turns off all the F35s, for one extreme example? *
There are treaties and contracts, but Mr Chump has shown he does not give a damn for any of those if he thinks he needs to break them. And his Government and structures supposed to keep him check - eg Republicans in Senate and Congress - have been replaced with servile snufflebots, even where they know the actions they take will be disastrous for the USA.
* When the SDR finally comes out, imo watch for quiet trends designed to lessen dependence on the USA. Examples may be Eurofighters not F35s, or NASAMS not Patriot for longer range SAM missiles. The former is *more* European, but not I think a completely sovereign capability.
Which is why suggestions that Trump might get Putin to turn on China seem a bit far-fetched. China is clearly a way more dependable friend to Russia than the US could ever be.
OTOH there might be a deal where Russia cuts off Iran in exchange for the US abandoning Ukraine.
I think that Trump and Vance just seriously damaged American leadership of the West, and certainly the European part of it. I had a few beers with a friend who is a senior Estonian politician. The commentary from the MAGA crew was, to a degree predicted. What was not predicted was the naked contempt for all of the EU members and indeed also the UK. However, the economy of the Nordic Baltic 7 is basically the same size as that of Russia and the view he put forward is that in many ways the MAGA mob have just done Europe a massive favour. "We have no choice, we have to work together", There are already significant discussions as to what now needs to be done. The coordination of the JEF states: Nordic/Baltic, the Netherlands and the UK is being discussed and it seems that Poland too will probably join quite quickly. So, with large scale defence expenditure on the way, the view is that the Nordic/Baltic region will be more than capable of seeing off any Russian attack without calling on the US. The US leverage could fall surprisingly quickly.
As for wider EU-US relations, there are already significant discussions about what to do if the US is going to stab Ukraine in the back. Again the view is that if the US is attacking the EU, then the EU no longer needs to accommodate US wishes in a variety of spheres, including tech regulation and finance. The contempt that Vance expressed is not a one way street. The EU will hit back very hard if Trump attempts to hurt global trade in ways that Brussels deems unacceptable.
So, "it begins". The EU economy is larger and more integrated into global trade than the US economy. Vance´s astonishingly ill judged speech is going to blow back to Washington in ways that the MAGA people do not even begin to expect. "Its sad, but is a matter of survival, we can not allow the US to compromise our hard fought freedom on a mere whim, and we wont"
So, I think Putin and Trump are going to get a few nasty surprises in the coming weeks.
I'm pretty sure Trump 2.0 will end in an economic firestorm. He hasn't a fucking clue about the world, trade or economics. Or indeed science and technology.
He wants to drill shale like there's no tomorrow even though the world wont need to buy his shale because the caravan has moved on.
Hopefully the storm will only be in America.
lols at the thought that the eu is more integrated into world trade its a protectionist overregulated little backwater that even now is having to backpeddle on ai regulation because everyone else is laughing at them
That's not really true: the EU exports far more than the US.
Take exports to China: it sucks up roughly twice as many goods and services from the EU ($250bn) as the US ($143bn). Or the UK - again, many more imports from the EU than the US. It's only really Mexico and Canada that import a lot more from the US than the EU.
And to repeat yes it does now but its an ever declining figure, not therefore a proof of the eu empires strength
Errr: EU export performance has been pretty strong, it's domestic demand and demographics that are their real problem.
EU gdp as a percentage of world gdp has dropped year on year and now about 15% from a lot more than 20% a decade or two back
Yes, but that wasn't the discussion point: it was about being integrated into world trade.
yes it was the point however the point is actually to my mind largely irrelevant, The majority of people in most countries in the west don't give a damn about how much trade their country does externally nor their gdp....they care if the wage in their pocket is buying more or less than it was last year...if the answer despite oooh we are doing better for more external trade and gdp is rising is they have less money sooner or later they are going to express their displeasure and its not going to be pretty.
Take it you have never been to Europe, typical Little Englander. They have a far better lifestyle than the UK.
Comments
Total benefit expenditure increased from £233.8bn in FYE 2023 to £266.2bn in FYE 2024. This was an increase of £32.4bn (13.9%) which was mainly due to:
*State Pension expenditure increasing by £14.2bn (12.9%), from £109.7bn in FYE 2023 to £123.9bn in FYE 2024
*Universal Credit expenditure increasing by £8.5bn (19.6%), from £43.4bn in FYE 2023 to £51.9bn in FYE 2024
*Personal Independence Payment expenditure increasing by £3.9bn (22.0%), from £17.7bn in FYE 2023 to £21.6bn in FYE 2024
*Cost of Living Payments expenditure increasing by £1.8bn (21.4%), from £8.4bn in FYE 2023 to £10.2bn in FYE 2024
£30bn per year is about what we would need to increase the defence budget by to match American levels as a share of GDP. Nothing anywhere remotely close to that is going to happen. Most of the additional revenue Reeves has generated from the last budget is going to go straight on social security. Even if Labour backbenchers could be talked and cajoled into a fresh round of austerity freezes on working age benefits, nobody (especially after the WFA stropfest) is going to dare touch pensioners again, and the triple lock is running completely out of control.
If there's any cash left after ramping benefits, it'll be spent trying to stop the NHS completely imploding. The Government's other major spending commitments include its estate of crumbling, dilapidated schools, police that don't bother to investigate whole categories of crime, and courts that take years to deliver justice, all areas that have had all the fat and much of the meat stripped off them already. There's simply no money left for defence, and the Government is completely terrified of the political consequences of further tax rises in a country where half the population has nothing left to give and the other half will immediately stamp off in a huff if asked for more.
Military recruitment will be at token levels and the Government will probably struggle to fill the ranks anyway, given the state of physical decrepitude of the predominantly fat and sedentary pool of potential recruits, and the very low pay on offer to new starters: the MoD has missed its targets on this front in almost every year since the start of the Coalition in 2010. There will be no major increases in personnel numbers or in investment in expensive kit, beyond what was already planned. The notion that any degree of threat from Russia, or strategic withdrawal by the United States, will prompt a fundamental revision of priorities by this or any other likely UK Government is for the birds.
Why does Trump put up with being humiliated like that?
I think quite a lot of people might have sympathy with the Vance view on migration/free speech.
But this is a domestic concern, not one for a foreigner to lecture other countries about. Especially when AP journalists have just been banned from Air Force One for not parroting Trump's Gulf of Mexico name change. And doubly especially so given the venue was a discussion about security/defence.
But instead of addressing Russia invading a sovereign European nation state, Vance banged on about something entirely different.
As others have noted, it was aimed entirely at a domestic audience.
My understanding is that the medical profession thinks banning pharma ads is good and that this could be something RFK does right by accident. The ideal being that you prescribe the appropriate medicine without the patient demanding the one they've seen on TV.
They then cut to a clearly flustered woman from the pregnancy advisory service who couldn’t get a straight sentence out about abortion clinics. It was like I’d woken up in a British-accented Alabama.
I hope the BBC’s sanewashing of Trump and their insistence on shoving him and his acolytes in our faces ad infinitum is going to ease up at some point. The media doesn’t seem to have tuned to the requisite level of disdain yet. You’d think after 2020 they’d be prepared.
Aiforia Breast Cancer Suite, https://www.aiforia.com/breast-cancer-ai
Spotify recommendations, https://www.spotify.com/us/safetyandprivacy/understanding-recommendations
Wysa, https://www.wysa.com/ai-cbt
WolframAlpha, https://www.wolframalpha.com/
SHRDLU, https://patrickvanbergen.com/blocks-world/
TMYCIN, https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~novak/tmycin.html
Perseverance, https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/
Chestnut, https://www.chessnutech.com/
Depressing that you got 12 "Likes" for this absurdly prolonged burp of pomposity, which is - inter alia - based on a a flat-out lie. The EU's economy is not bigger than the USA. The USA is larger whether you express it as GDP by PPP or Nominal
Fail
The Telegraph has badly misjudged its readers, here
Vance potentially lit the touchpaper yesterday
The sense of bewildered fear on this forum is palpable, and delicious
But that wasn't the point of the gathering. Sure, you can turn up at an AA meeting and lecture everyone about supply side economics while taking swigs from your hip flask, but they'll think you're a dick.
But I think that to Jonah, in the moment the distinction may be a little academic.
When I looked, I was surprised how common this is.
One thing I will punt: there will be lots of "accounts" of this type circulating in MAGA-Land to 'prove' the literal truth of the Jonah parable/myth.
NEW THREAD
The EU is SMALLER than the USA, economically
I'm going to hazard a guess. You're all so bed-wettingly affeared of Vance and Trump you are eagerly seizing on anything that confirms your worldview, and if it has 19 supercilious, misinformed, sophomoric paragraphs rather than just 2 then you will LIKE IT even more. Pathetic
This site is in for a hard few years if even the relatively intelligent PB lefties (there must be a couple) are reduced to liking or spouting this adolescent wanksplaining drivel
OTOH there might be a deal where Russia cuts off Iran in exchange for the US abandoning Ukraine.