Skip to content
Options

I am now convinced Badenoch is safe in the short term at least – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited March 8 in General
I am now convinced Badenoch is safe in the short term at least – politicalbetting.com

When it comes making successful political predictions the only rival Nadine Dorries has is Sion Simon so when I saw her prediction today I am now certain Kemi Badenoch will be Tory leader for a while yet.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    I don’t see how Kemi goes before June unless she herself calls it a day - so Yes is the clear winner.

    But even then the odds are unappealing
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    FPT....
    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
  • PadTheHoundsmanPadTheHoundsman Posts: 41
    edited February 17
    On the other hand, stopped clocks are right twice a day, so don't discount an accidental correct prediction by Mad Nads.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,270
    edited February 17
    I thought Kemi couldn't be challenged before November 25 but frankly with world events as they are she is not going to get a hearing

    Apparently Macron has spoken to Trump before today's meeting and I expect a reaffirmation to increase NATO spending by the European countries
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,389
    While Starmer is in France meeting other leaders about the future of Europe, she actually stood at a lectern and said this, out loud...

    "Bold leadership, not fear, will shape the future."

    He is PM, and she will never be
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    I am having to read an article in the International Journal of Wine Marketing. For work.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    bondegezou said:

    FPT....

    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
    Does declaring war on Germany in 1914 not count?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,115
    Some titles are totally inappropriate. Nadine Dorries is neither right nor honourable, and never has been.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    bondegezou said:

    FPT....

    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
    Allied Nations.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    edited February 17
    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,658
    FPT:
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MJW said:

    MattW said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Second.

    I'm not so sure on Reform. To me their coalition looks fragile.

    How will they resolve their tensions:

    - Patriotism vs Trumpism when the USA turns its back on allies and the rest of the world.
    - Between Rich men based in Dubai or the US or wherever feathering their nests vs grass roots who want to be loyal British.
    - The enormous black holes in their Manifesto between declared intention to shrink the state and policies that require much more public investment.
    - The contribution their MPs actually make to doing their jobs vs their second jobs in media.
    - The tensions between various shades of Right in their internal coalition, and the supporters they need to attract from the mainstream.

    I don't see it holding together.
    If you think Reform's MPs aren't making a contribution outside of their media appearances, you're pretty ill-researched. Rupert Lowe alone has submitted 624 parliamentary questions according to an AI summary. I doubt it's far off. Frankly it's the Reform five making the other parties' MPs look lazy, not the other way around, much as you might wish otherwise.
    If you can point me to some data eg debate attendances, that would be great.
    Lowe does appear to be Reform's hardest working MP - in a bit of a tallest dwarf contest. I'm surprised though that anyone who saw Southampton's demise in the mid-2000s thinks he's fit to run a bath.
    Bearing in mind that I have a Reform MP, I am genuinely interested in this.

    At a recent debate on immigration, all 5 Reform MPs turned up to vote, but none of them spoke in the debate. Given that it is Specialist Subject 1, I'm interested in some data.
    It might be interesting to drill into Lowe's 624 questions, as pointed out by @Luckyguy1983 , to see if they are substantive or if there is an obsessive search for eye-poking material.

    624 questions costs about £159k to answer btw (~£255 each), based on index linking a quoted cost from some years ago.

    I'll check that 624.
    Is that 624 per mensem or per annum?

    This might interest you ... Tories (for all I know) trying to prove that Holyrood is a waste by, erm ...

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24937591.full-ranking-msps-ask-least-questions-holyrood/
    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24921478.douglas-lumsden-submits-900-parliamentary-questions-costing-100k/

    'Tory MSP Douglas Lumsden submitting a staggering 987 written questions in January.

    Costing around £100 each to answer, it was suggested that the MSP for North East Scotland used AI for the endeavour, which he has denied.

    It included asking for the cost of electric hand dryers on the parliamentary estate, how many Scottish Parliament flags have gone missing over the last 10 years, and the average profit or loss on jars of honey sold in the Holyrood shop.'
    It seems to be 728 not 624, and that is since September 2nd 2024.

    There are 15 dated to 14/2/25. 8 are of the form per department:

    Rupert Lowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if she will publish the total cost to the public purse for the provision of diversity, equality and inclusion courses for staff in her Department in 2024.

    There were 6 more written questions dated 13/2/25. 5 were of the same form.

    And one more dated 12/2/25.

    Stuff about migrants, translation services' cost, overseas students, immigration enforcement, one on Muslims in the NHS, and also waiting time on telephone calls.

    Link:
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=rupert+lowe+section:wrans+section:wms

    I'm not making a particular judgement (Lib Dems always did this). But I assume he is the fishing department :wink: .

    Chat GPT does not think that Farage or Tice or James McMurdock are MPs afaics.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT....

    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
    Does declaring war on Germany in 1914 not count?
    It does, but between then and 1942/3, there had been a period where we were more focused on just defending our borders. So I wanted a date since when we had continuously been sending troops to other countries' borders. If that makes sense?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,389
    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,470
    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    Article 5 has been invoked just once, when the US was attacked, and that led to hundreds of troops from other NATO countries dying for America.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,262
    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Quite the diplomat.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    ydoethur said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT....

    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
    Allied Nations.
    United Nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations

    (But, yes, Allied nations was also used.)
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,418
    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    I'm not certain anyone was claiming that things were working wonderfully until the balding orange man came along, but they were working better.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Corbyn will find a reason not to.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    edited February 17
    bondegezou said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    I'm not certain anyone was claiming that things were working wonderfully until the balding orange man came along, but they were working better.
    The annexation of Crimea in 2014 suggests that they weren't, in fact, working better.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,658
    edited February 17
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I thought Kemi couldn't be challenged before November 25 but frankly with world events as they are she is not going to get a hearing

    Apparently Macron has spoken to Trump before today's meeting and I expect a reaffirmation to increase NATO spending by the European countries

    Yes, plus:

    Quietly putting in the plumbing for European security, in whatever form, without the USA - whilst aiming to keep the Usonians here because it is better and the USA rhetoric still says "committed to NATO". And there's no point in triggering Trump when it is not unavoidable to do so.

    Working towards more defined political support for Ukraine, including some sort of in-country support (eg setting up an u[dated Operation Interflex in country) and doing what is feasible as whatever-the-process-is continues.

    Attempting "cautious but firm" expressions of support, with some evidence thereof, to try and give Russia more pause for thought. In due course that could be defence spending up for several countries, 0.XX% of GDP for Ukraine, and starting preparation therefore soon.

    (Personally I'm expecting something alongside NATO, even though Clause 5 was always a coalition of the willing, and and something to blunt the USA expressed intention to partition Ukraine and give the other bit to Putin.)

    But too many moving parts to call.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,675
    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    So the Ukraine-China border becomes a reality?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    People need to stop taking coercive diplomacy at face value. The suggestion that BRICS countries get involved is obviously a message to Europe to take care of its own back yard or else.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    In the absence of much idea what this purported peace deal would look like, we need to be careful to recognise that the role of any troops could be very different. Peacekeepers patrolling an agreed line is different, I suggest, from what Starmer was suggesting, which was troops in Ukraine as part of guarantees of Ukraine's security.

    In the event of war breaking out again (in the hypothetical situation that we get to a deal), peacekeepers leave. They are there to monitor an agreement. If the agreement collapses, they are not there to fight.

    But troops providing security guarantees are there to fight if Russia attacks again.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    Is this not a case of, in the words of Paul McGann on Withnail and I, a fucked clock being right twice a day? Usually Dorries' outbursts are based on wild conspiracy theories. This appears based on looking at the polls and the fact Badenoch looks to be clueless as to how to change the trend.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,270
    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Quite the diplomat.
    Silly comment by Davey

    Many will have concerns over British forces sent to Ukraine not least how many, under NATO or as some other peacekeeper force such as UN, the cost and length of commitment

    These are fair questions and Davey needs to understand why some who absolutely reject Reform would ask them
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,470
    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    I'm not certain anyone was claiming that things were working wonderfully until the balding orange man came along, but they were working better.
    The annexation of Crimea in 2014 suggests that they weren't, in fact, working better.
    Putin hasn't invaded any NATO countries. Your hero Trump has put that in doubt.

    BTW, I'm curious have you come out as a full-on Putin supporter yet? Or are you still limiting it for the moment to cheerleading for the Neonazi Putin-loving AfD?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    I'm not certain anyone was claiming that things were working wonderfully until the balding orange man came along, but they were working better.
    The annexation of Crimea in 2014 suggests that they weren't, in fact, working better.
    The Trump Presidency is still in its early days. So far, he has suggested the US invade Panama (a war of aggression, illegal under international law) and Greenland (a war of aggression, illegal under international law and would trigger Article 5 of NATO), and that Gaza should be ethnically cleansed (a crime against humanity). There are all of a comparable seriousness to the annexation of Crimea. Putin at least pretended to follow international law when he annexed Crimea by holding a (fake) referendum. Trump is just tearing up the post-1945 settlement.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,470
    williamglenn said:

    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    People need to stop taking coercive diplomacy at face value. The suggestion that BRICS countries get involved is obviously a message to Europe to take care of its own back yard or else.
    You are being too generous to Trump. The $500 billion of minerals and BRICS nonsense could just as easily be Trump setting up a deal Ukraine rightly would not accept, so that Trump can say "I tried" and pull the plug on all support to Ukraine and end the sanctions on Russia.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,658
    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,966
    bondegezou said:

    FPT....

    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
    Crimean War (1854) was about protecting the Ottoman Empires borders from Russia.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,665
    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    China should be supplying peacekeeping troops. In its interests to be seen to be the new world policeman, they have the manpower and numbers needed and most importantly Russian commanders aren’t going to be turning any blind eyes towards any potential accidental shootings by Russian soldiers at Chinese troops which might easily happen if British troops are across the lines.

    Turkey should also be encouraged to provide peacekeeping troops as again, the Russians aren’t really going to fuck around with them either.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,562
    edited February 17
    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Quite the diplomat.
    'bootlickers' is more diplomatic than it could have been :wink:

    Did Davey really say that, though?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    I'm not certain anyone was claiming that things were working wonderfully until the balding orange man came along, but they were working better.
    The annexation of Crimea in 2014 suggests that they weren't, in fact, working better.
    It was a mistake not to come down hard on Russia after Crimea or Georgia in 2008 for that matter. But not strictly within NATO's purview. Given not a NATO member and had actually been blocked from becoming one. In part because of the likelihood of Russian aggression towards it provoking a war. We've hopefully learned the lesson. America appears not to have.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,590
    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Not much point without Germany.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,658
    edited February 17
    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    That has a USA vs Europe feel to it. And I'm not convinced by the "Peacekeeping force sandwich" model. I think Europe for our own interests need to impose our view on much of this, or get walked all over, and something backing Ukraine with the implication to Russia "stop fighting and keep out" us more appropriate than something which treats both sides as equals.

    Let's see what the European countries do - since this will never be UN unless the West was to get f*cked (Russia would consent only then).

    I have no idea what will happen.

    In my dreams, Europe will be like the Ents, and wake up to find they are strong. The forces are there, but it's about political will.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,001
    Nadine might be right. Both Alex and Claire went to Oxford, which is what counts. One did sums like Liz and the other is a former history teacher who wrote for the Spectator.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
    This would be the government that won a landslide 6 months ago? If the public hate it, they can vote them out in four years. Russians do not have that luxury.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,432
    I know little about the right honorable lady, but I agree with TSE that someone who is always wrong is, if anything, more useful in betting (and planning) than someone who is usually right.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,532
    kamski said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    Article 5 has been invoked just once, when the US was attacked, and that led to hundreds of troops from other NATO countries dying for America.
    But they were just "losers and suckers" in Trump world.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,658
    Jim_Miller said:

    I know little about the right honorable lady, but I agree with TSE that someone who is always wrong is, if anything, more useful in betting (and planning) than someone who is usually right.

    Quite nasty and vindictive imo.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,193
    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    Which way will the Chinese troops be pointing their guns?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nadine might be right. Both Alex and Claire went to Oxford, which is what counts. One did sums like Liz and the other is a former history teacher who wrote for the Spectator.

    Writing for the Spectator is not as impressive as it once might have been.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    edited February 17
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Quite the diplomat.
    Silly comment by Davey

    Many will have concerns over British forces sent to Ukraine not least how many, under NATO or as some other peacekeeper force such as UN, the cost and length of commitment

    These are fair questions and Davey needs to understand why some who absolutely reject Reform would ask them
    Hey you either send some troops to the Ukraine to ensure Russia doesn’t attack again or you watch and wait for Russia to attack Ukraine again followed by Poland, Germany…..
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    edited February 17
    The Brics thing is yet another insult. NATO really doesn’t exist any more.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,193
    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Corbyn will find a reason not to.
    Maybe Hamas could contribute to the peacekeeping force?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    It was only a few weeks ago that Trump lickspittle Professor Niall Ferguson was proclaiming this the worst idea he had ever heard. It will be fascinating to watch him find reasons for changing his mind.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.

    That's right. It's just like Russia here.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,356
    ydoethur said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT....

    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
    Allied Nations.
    The phrase "United Nations" predates the United Nations Organisation. For example, see this poster from 1943

    https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/p17208coll3/id/1099/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    edited February 17
    https://webtv.un.org/en

    Roger Waters addressing the UN about an hour back.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,356
    Pulpstar said:

    https://webtv.un.org/en

    Roger Waters addressing the UN about an hour back.

    Ah, Pink Floyd... :)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,073
    SouthamObserver said:

    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    It was only a few weeks ago that Trump lickspittle Professor Niall Ferguson was proclaiming this the worst idea he had ever heard. It will be fascinating to watch him find reasons for changing his mind.

    Chinese troops on the edge of central europe.

    Not a problem at all. Everything's gonna be fine.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,073
    Gallowgate said:

    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
    Fuck me the absolute state of this comment
    Dunno depends where WilliamGlenn is writing from.

    Hungary?

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,356
    Gary Economics on why Labour are fucking up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCnImxVWbvc (25 mins)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    SouthamObserver said:

    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.

    That's right. It's just like Russia here.

    It really is time to call out this stuff. Like folks used to say in the Cold War, if you love it so much, go live in Russia.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,658
    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT....

    williamglenn said:

    bondegezou said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Whether you agree with it or not, the slogan "Why should we send troops to defend another country's borders when we can't defend our own borders" is potentially a very resonant one.

    We've been sending our troops to defend other country's borders since 1943.
    Interesting date. Why 1943?
    By 1943, the threat to our own borders was greatly reduced: Hitler wasn't going to invade. But we knew we wanted to defeat Hitler and that meant taking the fighting to other countries, in collaboration with what was called the United Nations. (Maybe 1942 would be more accurate?)

    Since then, we have seen our safety as being best achieved through alliance and the safety of other countries.
    Allied Nations.
    The phrase "United Nations" predates the United Nations Organisation. For example, see this poster from 1943

    https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/p17208coll3/id/1099/
    Indeed - 1941, Atlantic Charter drafted by Roosevelt and Churchill which was approved by the Allied Governments in Exile, Norway, Netherlands etc.

    The first step towards the establishment of the United Nations was the Inter-Allied Conference in London that led to the Declaration of St James's Palace on 12 June 1941. By August 1941, American President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had drafted the Atlantic Charter; which defined goals for the post-war world. At the subsequent meeting of the Inter-Allied Council in London on 24 September 1941, the eight governments in exile of countries under Axis occupation, together with the Soviet Union and representatives of the Free French Forces, unanimously adopted adherence to the common principles of policy set forth by Britain and the United States.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    How are the Jan 6 pardons going?

    “Jan. 6 Rioters Argue Pardons Apply to Charges Including Murder Plot, Child Porn
    “Defendants argue that Trump pardons should absolve them of additional crimes, some discovered during investigations of the Capitol riot”

    https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/jan-6-released-aftermath-7e8a57a4
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    SouthamObserver said:

    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.

    That's right. It's just like Russia here.

    Temperature wise, yes, it has been!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,532
    MattW said:

    RandallFlagg said:

    Ukraine sell-out gets worse... BRICS countries now being proposed to make up the peacekeeping force.

    MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦
    ‪@maks23.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist

    That has a USA vs Europe feel to it. And I'm not convinced by the "Peacekeeping force sandwich" model. I think Europe for our own interests need to impose our view on much of this, or get walked all over, and something backing Ukraine with the implication to Russia "stop fighting and keep out" us more appropriate than something which treats both sides as equals.

    Let's see what the European countries do - since this will never be UN unless the West was to get f*cked (Russia would consent only then).

    I have no idea what will happen.

    In my dreams, Europe will be like the Ents, and wake up to find they are strong. The forces are there, but it's about political will.
    The Americans might end sanctions, but they will still have bite if Europe keeps them in place. China will still not want to be in conflict over them; perhaps India too. Drill, baby, drill America isn't going to need to be buying Putin's oil. If no-one else much will, then it isn't really a peace for Putin.

    In any event, if I were the European leaders, I'd be sending Ukraine as many means of trashing Russian oil facilities as possible. That means you and your Taurus missiles, new German leader. Russia needs to be spending the next 10 years fixing infrastructure, rather than making military kit.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,073
    Calgie
    @christiancalgie
    NEW: Kemi Badenoch says that Elon Musk's DOGE-style approach to cutting government waste is not "radical enough" for Britain.

    She says: "Looking at what we're spending on welfare, looking at so much waste, a lot of nonsense that government does. It's too big. We need smaller government, smarter spending."

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1891511432828846448

    ===

    Trump: Elon is going to raze the federal government to the ground.

    Badenoch: I'd do more.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,744
    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
    I can't stand this government, but if it were like Putin's mafia, Starmer's cronies would have sent you (and me for that matter) flying from a basement window a long time ago.
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 111
    Punters should note, Claire Coutinho has just had a kid about a month ago, not sure she will be desperate to want to throw her hat into the ring for a Tory mud fight at this time

    I don't know much about the other name Ms Dorries suggests.

    Not sure there would be a unifying candidate when Kemi decides to jack it in
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,194
    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Quite the diplomat.
    Diplotwat.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,194
    Fishing said:

    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
    I can't stand this government, but if it were like Putin's mafia, Starmer's cronies would have sent you (and me for that matter) flying from a basement window a long time ago.
    It would be just like Starmer's incompetents to attempt an assasination by chucking someone out of a basement.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,193
    rottenborough said:

    Calgie
    @christiancalgie
    NEW: Kemi Badenoch says that Elon Musk's DOGE-style approach to cutting government waste is not "radical enough" for Britain.

    She says: "Looking at what we're spending on welfare, looking at so much waste, a lot of nonsense that government does. It's too big. We need smaller government, smarter spending."

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1891511432828846448

    ===

    Trump: Elon is going to raze the federal government to the ground.

    Badenoch: I'd do more.

    So Kemi, why didn't you and your chums do it between 2010 and 2024 when, you know, you were in government?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,194
    Pulpstar said:

    https://webtv.un.org/en

    Roger Waters addressing the UN about an hour back.

    Seems a very niche topic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,665
    kamski said:

    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
    You've got to Western European democracies are no better than Putin. Come on William just one more step!
    "...You'd like me to say it?
    I want you to say it, yes.
    You want the word?
    The word!
    I will not flinch..."
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,287
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I thought Kemi couldn't be challenged before November 25 but frankly with world events as they are she is not going to get a hearing

    Apparently Macron has spoken to Trump before today's meeting and I expect a reaffirmation to increase NATO spending by the European countries

    The rules say she is immune from challenge until November... But ask Truss, Johnson and May how much good immunity did them.

    And with speeches like today's, Badenoch will be very fortunate not to get a hearing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,073
    Retired Canadian General:

    I submit we are under attack and more significantly, so too is the global system upon which our security and prosperity are based. In response we need to rapidly deploy all available instruments of national power with maximal effect. This may need to include otherwise previously unthinkable actions such as shutting off our oil and gas, electrical power and critical supplies, as well as the abandonment of historic diplomatic and military relationships and commitments.

    This is no longer just about Canada and our national pride, this is about stopping [Lord of the Flies] Jack before he destroys the whole island.

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mark-norman-canadas-relationship-with-the-u-s-cant-be-saved
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,194
    Alex Burghardt and Claire Coutinho? That's who the plotters have left? They'd actually be better sticking with Kemi. And that's saying something. Neither of those daft sausages are going to get near the leadership. It will be Jenrick if Kemi goes.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    SandyRentool said:

    rottenborough said:

    Calgie
    @christiancalgie
    NEW: Kemi Badenoch says that Elon Musk's DOGE-style approach to cutting government waste is not "radical enough" for Britain.

    She says: "Looking at what we're spending on welfare, looking at so much waste, a lot of nonsense that government does. It's too big. We need smaller government, smarter spending."

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1891511432828846448

    ===

    Trump: Elon is going to raze the federal government to the ground.

    Badenoch: I'd do more.

    So Kemi, why didn't you and your chums do it between 2010 and 2024 when, you know, you were in government?
    That's the problem the Tories have and it's why they are going to wither and die. They had their chance and they failed - heck the person they tasked to implement Kemi's exact plan lasted 49 days and 20 of those were due to the Queen dying inconveniently.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,073
    Did anyone, and I mean anyone in the world, outside of the demons in Trump's head, have war with Canada on their predictions for second term?

  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,336
    SouthamObserver said:

    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/

    I'm sure Russia would welcome them. 13% income tax rates as well, their own personal nirvana, what's stopping them?
    PB right wing patriots, please explain why you're not all on a flight to Moscow.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    rottenborough said:

    Did anyone, and I mean anyone in the world, outside of the demons in Trump's head, have war with Canada on their predictions for second term?

    I doubt the demons in Trump's head thought it was likely to be successful but they wanted to try for the Lols.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    rottenborough said:

    Calgie
    @christiancalgie
    NEW: Kemi Badenoch says that Elon Musk's DOGE-style approach to cutting government waste is not "radical enough" for Britain.

    She says: "Looking at what we're spending on welfare, looking at so much waste, a lot of nonsense that government does. It's too big. We need smaller government, smarter spending."

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1891511432828846448

    ===

    Trump: Elon is going to raze the federal government to the ground.

    Badenoch: I'd do more.

    Trying to out-Reform Reform? Or does she genuinely believe this? In which case, why not join Reform?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,665
    Selebian said:

    Battlebus said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @eddavey.libdems.org.uk‬

    In principle there should be a vote in Parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the Prime Minister apart from those Trump bootlickers in Reform.

    Quite the diplomat.
    'bootlickers' is more diplomatic than it could have been :wink:

    Did Davey really say that, though?
    Posted it, yes.
    https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1891497331624697994

    TBF, he didn't say they were all bootlickers.

    Though you could interpret it that way.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
    You've got to Western European democracies are no better than Putin. Come on William just one more step!
    "...You'd like me to say it?
    I want you to say it, yes.
    You want the word?
    The word!
    I will not flinch..."
    "Phwoar"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,665
    edited February 17
    rottenborough said:

    Retired Canadian General:

    I submit we are under attack and more significantly, so too is the global system upon which our security and prosperity are based. In response we need to rapidly deploy all available instruments of national power with maximal effect. This may need to include otherwise previously unthinkable actions such as shutting off our oil and gas, electrical power and critical supplies, as well as the abandonment of historic diplomatic and military relationships and commitments.

    This is no longer just about Canada and our national pride, this is about stopping [Lord of the Flies] Jack before he destroys the whole island.

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mark-norman-canadas-relationship-with-the-u-s-cant-be-saved

    This one is an optimist - he gives us the rest of Trump's term to sort out a plan.

    Retired general: Putin will likely ‘wait out’ Trump term and take Ukraine
    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5149083-putin-ukraine-trump-jack-keane/
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,356
    rottenborough said:

    Did anyone, and I mean anyone in the world, outside of the demons in Trump's head, have war with Canada on their predictions for second term?

    Actually, yes
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,362
    Gallowgate said:

    williamglenn said:

    MattW said:

    williamglenn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Britain and France stand alone against tyranny. Same old, Same old.

    Good afternoon

    I think you will find Poland and the Baltic Countries will stand against tyranny but as I said yesterday as part of NATO notwithstanding the present US attitudes

    An European Army was always a non starter
    NATO isn’t really a thing anymore. That’s the problem. Would you trust Trump to fulfil a treaty obligation?
    There are two things that tend to be overlooked in the discussion about NATO:

    - Article 5 does not mean that every member is obliged to go to war on behalf of a state being attacked but just to "assist" them "as it deems necessary"

    - From the US perspective, it is the relative lack of investment in the military from European countries that has undermined the basis of NATO

    The idea that everything was working wonderfully until the bad orange man came along is not correct.
    However, Trump's assault on democracy in the USA and Europe, and his declarations, have changed the basic assumptions.
    We have a Putin-style managed democracy at the moment, with a firewall between public opinion and government policy.
    Fuck me the absolute state of this comment
    It's becoming quite clear who the real traitors in the UK are.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,287
    Sean_F said:

    Far be it from me to defend SKS, but only a fool would prefer Trump, let alone Putin.

    Agree, but unfortunately the kindest thing that can be said about many in the Anglosphere right is that, right now, they are behaving like fools.

    It's probably due to internet algorithms.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    SouthamObserver said:

    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/

    Not me, not even close. One is a bumbling, mumbling incompetent well out of his depth. The other is a psychopathic lunatic responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. People need to get a sense of proportion.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,352
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Alex Burghardt and Claire Coutinho? That's who the plotters have left? They'd actually be better sticking with Kemi. And that's saying something. Neither of those daft sausages are going to get near the leadership. It will be Jenrick if Kemi goes.

    That's who Nadine Dorries says the plotters have left, which may not be the truth!

    The bookies agree somewhat with you. Jenrick and Cleverly are joint favourites, but both are only 5/1 (at Oddschecker). Boris Johnson is 13/2 (lay!). Best odds on Nigel Farage are 7/1 (lay!). Coutinho best odds are 25/1, fifth equal favourite. Burghardt is 12th favourite at best odds of 28/1 (value?). 33/1 on Philp might be worth a flutter.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,470
    rottenborough said:

    Did anyone, and I mean anyone in the world, outside of the demons in Trump's head, have war with Canada on their predictions for second term?

    Michael Moore?

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,329
    SouthamObserver said:

    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/

    Starting to think Corbyn was quite hard done by 👀
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Eabhal said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/

    Starting to think Corbyn was quite hard done by 👀

    "I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"

    More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.

    The right in the UK has lost its mind.

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,744
    Dopermean said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/

    I'm sure Russia would welcome them. 13% income tax rates as well, their own personal nirvana, what's stopping them?
    PB right wing patriots, please explain why you're not all on a flight to Moscow.
    Don't you mean traitors?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,021
    SouthamObserver said:

    Eabhal said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/

    Starting to think Corbyn was quite hard done by 👀

    "I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"

    More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.

    The right in the UK has lost its mind.

    Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Clarkson speaking for much of the UK right here:

    https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/17/jeremy-clarkson-claims-rather-putin-lead-country-starmer-22573687/

    Not me, not even close. One is a bumbling, mumbling incompetent well out of his depth. The other is a psychopathic lunatic responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. People need to get a sense of proportion.

    It'll be interesting to see whether Clarkson's comments get any pushback on the right. I would be pleasantly surprised.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,073
    Has it occurred to Badenoch that Musk's DOGE might not work, so committing to go even further at this stage is mad?

    I know Trump is a very stable genius and we all know Musk is Mr Rocket Science but there's a chance that actually closing dozens of federal departments and agencies and sacking 80% of the fed employees might be a complete disaster for the process of government that becomes incredibly unpopular with voters when nothing works.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851
    OT: I always thought Nadine Dorries was unprofessional (even by modern political standards) but that post is beyond that, it is demented.

    Maybe she should reflect on the reality that if Bozo had been a) been any good and b) not surrounded himself by sycophantic no-hopers like Nadine Dorries, he wouldn't have been toppled.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,021
    SandyRentool said:

    rottenborough said:

    Calgie
    @christiancalgie
    NEW: Kemi Badenoch says that Elon Musk's DOGE-style approach to cutting government waste is not "radical enough" for Britain.

    She says: "Looking at what we're spending on welfare, looking at so much waste, a lot of nonsense that government does. It's too big. We need smaller government, smarter spending."

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1891511432828846448

    ===

    Trump: Elon is going to raze the federal government to the ground.

    Badenoch: I'd do more.

    So Kemi, why didn't you and your chums do it between 2010 and 2024 when, you know, you were in government?
    Also, Kemi, you opposed the cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance. Isn't that the epitome of "wasteful" nice to have spending that goes to a lot who don't strictly need it?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,073
    glw said:

    rottenborough said:

    Did anyone, and I mean anyone in the world, outside of the demons in Trump's head, have war with Canada on their predictions for second term?

    Michael Moore?

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/
    LOL. Good point!!
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025