Reforms prospects are linked to just how crazy the next 4 years are with Trump . There must be some nervousness at Reform HQ .
Labour can’t attack Trump so will go after Reform on Putin .
The problem everyone has is that Trump isn't reliable. He doesn't seem to have a strategy, just a hazy idea of where he wants to go, and where he wants to be, and as far as the latter is concerned, that varies.
Also much of the public. This, imo, is the problem with trying to give him "wins", ie things that are a bit of a sham (eg this minerals nonsense) but which he can boast about and claim are great for America and have happened due to his genius "deal making".
It might pay short term dividends (to the panderer) but the chances are that the gullibles who comprise his core support will lap up his presentation and so it strengthens his domestic position. Which is what counts the most, since the horror show can only be ended where it started, in America, by Americans.
I notice the rookies at McLaren and Red Bull were fastest in the opening testing session this morning. Which @Morris_Dancer will probably say shows how little testing times on the first day tell you about the potential of the cars.
Williams were third, and McLaren 8th.
I'm not expecting Williams to be third fastest this season, nor McLaren third slowest.
Reforms prospects are linked to just how crazy the next 4 years are with Trump . There must be some nervousness at Reform HQ .
Labour can’t attack Trump so will go after Reform on Putin .
The problem everyone has is that Trump isn't reliable. He doesn't seem to have a strategy, just a hazy idea of where he wants to go, and where he wants to be, and as far as the latter is concerned, that varies.
Also much of the public. This, imo, is the problem with trying to give him "wins", ie things that are a bit of a sham (eg this minerals nonsense) but which he can boast about and claim are great for America and have happened due to his genius "deal making".
It might pay short term dividends (to the panderer) but the chances are that the gullibles who comprise his core support will lap up his presentation and so it strengthens his domestic position. Which is what counts the most, since the horror show can only be ended where it started, in America, by Americans.
Foreign policy wins are of marginal utility though. It’s notable how US political twitter is almost entirely domestic focused. There’s very little about Ukraine or Gaza, it’s all DOGE, the price of eggs and court hearings.
Only a small shift, but I wonder if we’re starting to see Reform to Con movement, based upon attitudes to Trump/Putin.
Yes, I reckon so. Not necessarily because of attitudes to Putin, more rallying round the flag at a time of danger. The Tories still have that comforting brand of continuity in the face of turmoil, no matter how undeserved since 2016.
I had dinner with two Reform members, last night, who at long last, see Trump for what he is (TBF, they’ve never been pro-Putin). The pro-Trump vote in this country is 15-20%, suggesting Reform could lose support, over and above that.
President Trump shares a video of an AI vision for the Gaza Strip, ends with Trump having drinks at a pool with Benjamin Netanyahu.
This video marks the point where I go from fearing the end of human civilisation to welcoming it.
We are witnessing something quite evil imo. All courtesy of around 250k swing state voters in America.
I mean, there maybe is a case for making Canada part of the States. A fresh influx of largely sane voters
Perhaps that's the source of MAGA antipathy towards Canada. It's a big chunk of "woke liberal elite" looking down on them, both geographically and metaphorically.
And they own almost as many guns as the Yanquis but manage not go around shooting up each other’s kids to anywhere near the same degree, the sanctimonious bastards.
Only a small shift, but I wonder if we’re starting to see Reform to Con movement, based upon attitudes to Trump/Putin.
Yes, I reckon so. Not necessarily because of attitudes to Putin, more rallying round the flag at a time of danger. The Tories still have that comforting brand of continuity in the face of turmoil, no matter how undeserved since 2016.
I had dinner with two Reform members, last night, who at long last, see Trump for what he is (TBF, they’ve never been pro-Putin). The pro-Trump vote in this country is 15-20%, suggesting Reform could lose support, over and above that.
Last night the BBC were framing Starmer's aid cuts and defence spending as implementing policy made by Donald Trump. Thinking that Reform will be tarnished is like thinking the Tories would take a hit over the Iraq war because they were more pro-Bush than Blair was.
Anyone who claims to have a clue as to what the seat outcome of such a result would be is lying or clueless.
Needs an MRP to even get to the right ballpark.
What we can say is that support for the right and for the left, is roughly equivalent (as in 2015, 2017, 2019), and what matters is which party gets the lion’s share among their bloc.
President Trump shares a video of an AI vision for the Gaza Strip, ends with Trump having drinks at a pool with Benjamin Netanyahu.
This video marks the point where I go from fearing the end of human civilisation to welcoming it.
We are witnessing something quite evil imo. All courtesy of around 250k swing state voters in America.
I mean, there maybe is a case for making Canada part of the States. A fresh influx of largely sane voters
Perhaps that's the source of MAGA antipathy towards Canada. It's a big chunk of "woke liberal elite" looking down on them, both geographically and metaphorically.
And they own almost as many guns as the Yanquis but manage not go around shooting up each other’s kids to anywhere near the same degree, the sanctimonious bastards.
Yes, rather than shoot people they floss their teeth. Imagine what a brighter world we'd have if everybody made that choice.
This baffles me. One of the Golden Rules of my political lifetime has been that in the aftermath of a General Election, the Liberal/Lib Dem vote implodes. Tanks catastrophically. Six months after the last General Election I would have forecast the Lib Dem vote to be at about 6%, that is, roughly half of what they got on polling day. But now, not only is it not collapsing, but it's rising.
How does that tie in with the Thread Topic on RefUK winning the General Election? Are Reform winning some protest votes from the Lib Dems which are being replaced (and more) by discontented Labour and Conservative voters? How much "churn" is there in these numbers, does anyone know? (Or care?)
From the YouGov tables:
Lib Dems have exceptionally strong retention of their '24 vote. Reform are similar.
Lib Dems are picking up some Conservative:Labour voters at a ratio of 1:2.
Reform are the inverse, 2:1, but picking up twice as many voters from other parties as the Lib Dems
Labour generally have poor voter retention.
That's very helpful and informative, thank you!
Treat with caution, particularly mixing up absolute figures and percentages.
The other interesting thing is Reform have now effectively replaced the Tories in Wales in a way they haven't (yet) in any region of England. I'm using Yougovs sample limit of 100 respondents for this.
Given the Tory vote in Wales had already collapsed by the time of the last election, the recent polling in Wlaes is surely more a reflection of Reform replacing Labour?
Well, this Welsh sub-sample would suggest they've fallen even further, from 18% in the GE to 10% now. I think it's fair to say Reform are an existential threat to the Tories in Wales in a way they aren't to Labour, given Labour are still picking up 27%.
Remember that is all people giving a voting intention. We know from other polling that much of Labour's vote is heading to DK, which is a big driver if why Reform's vote shares look so good.
Anyone who claims to have a clue as to what the seat outcome of such a result would be is lying or clueless.
Needs an MRP to even get to the right ballpark.
What we can say is that support for the right and for the left, is roughly equivalent (as in 2015, 2017, 2019), and what matters is which party gets the lion’s share among their bloc.
LLG 47 RefCon 49
Far less variation across polling on this measure than on individual party shares.
What does seem clear, for now, is that the Tories are not yet in a Reform tailspin and are holding the line. FPTP voter muscle memory, the same thing that’s done for every Liberal surge since the 80s.
On topic... what the Fukkers really need are tory defections. To lend some political heft and sustain the impression of (non-majusucle M) momentum.
I doubt Jenners will turn his cloak as he has a realistic expectation of ruling over the smouldering tory rubble left by The Kemster's rapid unscheduled disassembly of the party.
And nobody wants Truss bless her. So that leaves Suella.
On topic... what the Fukkers really need are tory defections. To lend some political heft and sustain the impression of (non-majusucle M) momentum.
I doubt Jenners will turn his cloak as he has a realistic expectation of ruling over the smouldering tory rubble left by The Kemster's rapid unscheduled disassembly of the party.
And nobody wants Truss bless her. So that leaves Suella.
Truss isn't even in Parliament now. Is she going to try for Runcorn etc?
Reforms prospects are linked to just how crazy the next 4 years are with Trump . There must be some nervousness at Reform HQ .
Labour can’t attack Trump so will go after Reform on Putin .
The problem everyone has is that Trump isn't reliable. He doesn't seem to have a strategy, just a hazy idea of where he wants to go, and where he wants to be, and as far as the latter is concerned, that varies.
Also much of the public. This, imo, is the problem with trying to give him "wins", ie things that are a bit of a sham (eg this minerals nonsense) but which he can boast about and claim are great for America and have happened due to his genius "deal making".
It might pay short term dividends (to the panderer) but the chances are that the gullibles who comprise his core support will lap up his presentation and so it strengthens his domestic position. Which is what counts the most, since the horror show can only be ended where it started, in America, by Americans.
Foreign policy wins are of marginal utility though. It’s notable how US political twitter is almost entirely domestic focused. There’s very little about Ukraine or Gaza, it’s all DOGE, the price of eggs and court hearings.
That's a worry too. The US economy is an awesome beast fuelled by enormous structural strengths and advantage. It would take a lot for any single President to wreck it. Ok if anyone can manage it Donald Trump can, but you can't count on it. Plus most of the pain would probably be felt (by Americans) after he's gone.
President Trump shares a video of an AI vision for the Gaza Strip, ends with Trump having drinks at a pool with Benjamin Netanyahu.
This video marks the point where I go from fearing the end of human civilisation to welcoming it.
We are witnessing something quite evil imo. All courtesy of around 250k swing state voters in America.
I mean, there maybe is a case for making Canada part of the States. A fresh influx of largely sane voters
Perhaps that's the source of MAGA antipathy towards Canada. It's a big chunk of "woke liberal elite" looking down on them, both geographically and metaphorically.
And they own almost as many guns as the Yanquis but manage not go around shooting up each other’s kids to anywhere near the same degree, the sanctimonious bastards.
I notice the rookies at McLaren and Red Bull were fastest in the opening testing session this morning. Which @Morris_Dancer will probably say shows how little testing times on the first day tell you about the potential of the cars.
Williams were third, and McLaren 8th.
I'm not expecting Williams to be third fastest this season, nor McLaren third slowest.
My bad - I should have said Mercedes and Red Bull.
May I suggest what an immense honour it would be for President Trump to take a ride on this mission and become the first President to venture to deep space?
Reforms prospects are linked to just how crazy the next 4 years are with Trump . There must be some nervousness at Reform HQ .
Labour can’t attack Trump so will go after Reform on Putin .
The problem everyone has is that Trump isn't reliable. He doesn't seem to have a strategy, just a hazy idea of where he wants to go, and where he wants to be, and as far as the latter is concerned, that varies.
Also much of the public. This, imo, is the problem with trying to give him "wins", ie things that are a bit of a sham (eg this minerals nonsense) but which he can boast about and claim are great for America and have happened due to his genius "deal making".
It might pay short term dividends (to the panderer) but the chances are that the gullibles who comprise his core support will lap up his presentation and so it strengthens his domestic position. Which is what counts the most, since the horror show can only be ended where it started, in America, by Americans.
Such considerations a long way down the list for Ukraine, though. National survival is rather more pressing.
Reforms prospects are linked to just how crazy the next 4 years are with Trump . There must be some nervousness at Reform HQ .
Labour can’t attack Trump so will go after Reform on Putin .
The problem everyone has is that Trump isn't reliable. He doesn't seem to have a strategy, just a hazy idea of where he wants to go, and where he wants to be, and as far as the latter is concerned, that varies.
Also much of the public. This, imo, is the problem with trying to give him "wins", ie things that are a bit of a sham (eg this minerals nonsense) but which he can boast about and claim are great for America and have happened due to his genius "deal making".
It might pay short term dividends (to the panderer) but the chances are that the gullibles who comprise his core support will lap up his presentation and so it strengthens his domestic position. Which is what counts the most, since the horror show can only be ended where it started, in America, by Americans.
Such considerations a long way down the list for Ukraine, though. National survival is rather more pressing.
This baffles me. One of the Golden Rules of my political lifetime has been that in the aftermath of a General Election, the Liberal/Lib Dem vote implodes. Tanks catastrophically. Six months after the last General Election I would have forecast the Lib Dem vote to be at about 6%, that is, roughly half of what they got on polling day. But now, not only is it not collapsing, but it's rising.
How does that tie in with the Thread Topic on RefUK winning the General Election? Are Reform winning some protest votes from the Lib Dems which are being replaced (and more) by discontented Labour and Conservative voters? How much "churn" is there in these numbers, does anyone know? (Or care?)
I think the current trend is this: At the GE the trend was 'Anyone but the Tories'; so LDs did well in LD land, Lab did well in Lab land, reform got millions of votes.
At this moment the trends are these (and may be very short lived): Reform has grown but for now peaked (because Trumpism); 'Anyone but Tories' has less resonance; 'Both Tories and Labour are not very good' has resonance, as does 'Anyone but Reform' (because Trump/Putin).
This = LDs have a chance for now of being on the up, for the simple reason of not being Reform, Lab or Con. But this is limited, unless there is a sea change, by the fact they only compete in small numbers of seats. If they go over 20%, the climate changes.
"Citizen Panels" are an absolute sham. I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular! https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
I'm not down with the White Saviour stuff in Africa, I'm afraid, and doubt those countries are still scratching around for just food and water; it's not the 1980s anymore.
But even if we accept that, and I don't because I think our donations displace others, vaccination programmes are a small proportion of aid spending in any event; ours on GAVI is about £400m per year.
It's not where most of the money is going.
The problem with aid spending is it lets those national governments off the hook and nothing ever changes for them. Withdrawing aid will help people help themselves by voting in governments that will help the people rather than line their own pockets.
But not giving aid - especially to those who need it - does nothing to help those people, or those national governments. It also opens the door for others to step in - look at the way China has been operating in Africa, or Russia with grain (much of which was stolen from Ukraine...)
There's a hefty component of self-interest in foreign aid as well.
It's in the UK's interest that all those growing sugar and coffee stay healthy. The same goes for preparing crops for climate change to prevent mass migration from famine. And so on.
Musk closing down the US 's domestic programmes for disease prevention is probably the most dangerous thing they've done so far, let alone USAID.
There are some really interesting theories about aid causing a lot of issues in the first place. But it would be extremely naive to think removing it would stimulate democracy and free markets, simply because the Chinese are destroying any hope of either anyway.
I don't think you can say anything is the worst tbh; it's all terrible.
eg They have also got rid of the staff from a body known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, obviously in violation of legal procedure, which does a similar job to the Financial Ombudsman in the UK - they seek to prevent abuse and fraud by banks on their customers. It has recovered more than $20bn since set up in 2011 by Obama.
They also did some FCA and Trading Standards type things - they were the body who prevented Facebook creating their own currency, for example; too much of a concentration of power and not enough transparency. Others (eg Musk) are now looking at creating one of those themselves.
There's been blowback, so Trump is making noises about not intending to close it - who can tell?
Trump and the oligarchs behind him are clearing out all the checks and balances to facilitate a new wild west for the robber barons. It's another area where he is going back to the late 19C.
As a % of the US GDP, Musk's wealth is still less than half of the level reached by JD Rockerfeller - 1.5% vs 3% on a quick estimate.
As per my usual post on using electoral calculus when polls are like this - it is bollocks. It is set up for a 2 party system with minor other parties. The surge in Reform completely breaks the model.
So just for one example is it credible that the decent increase in the LD vote is going to result in them losing 6 seats by any serious analysis? It isn't. Just comparing the relevant change in LD/Tory percentages should shows gains for the LDs, then there is the increase in tactical voting from Labour voter collapse in the LD/Tory marginals. So simple analysis should show gains for the LDs not loses (regardless of what actually happens). So where have these LD seats gone then if not to the Tories (who are currently actually their main challengers in every one of their 72 seats)? Reform? Labour? Neither of those seem remotely likely.
I suspect the other numbers are way out as well but that is more difficult to analyse.
PS Just seen the breakdown. It seems it is 5 Tory gains and 1 Reform gain. Bonkers.
The model is wrong. I was also playing about with it and getting nonsense, so I entered exactly unchanged vote shares from the last GE and got:
L 400 C 153 LD 55 Ref 4 G 3
So clearly a pro-Conservative bias in the base data which is not the GE result.
There are also some changes between the GE and now within the minor parties in the model but I don't see how I can change that, but the effect overall is inconsequential.
Had a look at the detail, it has Labour winning Cheadle from the LDs when in fact they are over 30 points behind. They must be using some weird MRP data making assumptions about movements since the GE as their baseline.
They are. On about Feb 10th, Electoral Calculus changed their baseline from the actual results to the latest MRP projection. As a consequence the Labour seat projection dropped from 270 to 201 on the same data on that date, and LDs dropped from 73 to 63.
"Citizen Panels" are an absolute sham. I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular! https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
It is not saying that the public agree with you, but that they would agree with you if they had your knowledge....
Reforms prospects are linked to just how crazy the next 4 years are with Trump . There must be some nervousness at Reform HQ .
Labour can’t attack Trump so will go after Reform on Putin .
The problem everyone has is that Trump isn't reliable. He doesn't seem to have a strategy, just a hazy idea of where he wants to go, and where he wants to be, and as far as the latter is concerned, that varies.
Also much of the public. This, imo, is the problem with trying to give him "wins", ie things that are a bit of a sham (eg this minerals nonsense) but which he can boast about and claim are great for America and have happened due to his genius "deal making".
It might pay short term dividends (to the panderer) but the chances are that the gullibles who comprise his core support will lap up his presentation and so it strengthens his domestic position. Which is what counts the most, since the horror show can only be ended where it started, in America, by Americans.
Foreign policy wins are of marginal utility though. It’s notable how US political twitter is almost entirely domestic focused. There’s very little about Ukraine or Gaza, it’s all DOGE, the price of eggs and court hearings.
That's a worry too. The US economy is an awesome beast fuelled by enormous structural strengths and advantage. It would take a lot for any single President to wreck it. Ok if anyone can manage it Donald Trump can, but you can't count on it. Plus most of the pain would probably be felt (by Americans) after he's gone.
Are we seeing any exodus of people or businesses yet from the USA?
(They have the issue that the USA claims worldwide jurisdiction in many respects - others here, and Boris Johnson, will know this better.)
"Citizen Panels" are an absolute sham. I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular! https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
It is not saying that the public agree with you, but that they would agree with you if they had your knowledge....
That would be something of a circular argument, though.
This baffles me. One of the Golden Rules of my political lifetime has been that in the aftermath of a General Election, the Liberal/Lib Dem vote implodes. Tanks catastrophically. Six months after the last General Election I would have forecast the Lib Dem vote to be at about 6%, that is, roughly half of what they got on polling day. But now, not only is it not collapsing, but it's rising.
How does that tie in with the Thread Topic on RefUK winning the General Election? Are Reform winning some protest votes from the Lib Dems which are being replaced (and more) by discontented Labour and Conservative voters? How much "churn" is there in these numbers, does anyone know? (Or care?)
I think the current trend is this: At the GE the trend was 'Anyone but the Tories'; so LDs did well in LD land, Lab did well in Lab land, reform got millions of votes.
At this moment the trends are these (and may be very short lived): Reform has grown but for now peaked (because Trumpism); 'Anyone but Tories' has less resonance; 'Both Tories and Labour are not very good' has resonance, as does 'Anyone but Reform' (because Trump/Putin).
This = LDs have a chance for now of being on the up, for the simple reason of not being Reform, Lab or Con. But this is limited, unless there is a sea change, by the fact they only compete in small numbers of seats. If they go over 20%, the climate changes.
I think a large number of "natural LDs" voted Labour tactically in 2024 to "get the Tories out" . And that vote is unwinding, but they are keeping the "natural Labour " voters who voted LD tactically.
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.
Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO. A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK. A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.
We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.
That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.
Our contributions to the WHO barely scrap £300 million, which is just over 2% of it.
We contribute to a lot of other international bodies too.
In 2022 (I can't see more recent figures) we spent over £3 billion on refugees support in or near conflict zones.
Should we cut that and encourage those refugees to flee further afield, like to the UK?
That's not the driver of refugees coming to the UK, much as you'd like to make the argument that it is.
It's those that can afford £5k to £8k to pay people smugglers, which is why it actually increases migration when countries move out of poverty to developing status.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
"Citizen Panels" are an absolute sham. I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular! https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
I am not sure who put in the worse performance, England versus Afghanistan or Kemi at PMQs.
She wasn’t as bad as last time.
That still doesn’t mean she was any good.
I would say I was under the impression the uplift in defence spending was 13 billion pa but it appears Starmer had added this year and next years foreign aid savings of 6 billion pa to achieve the 13 billion
This was a fair question and indeed it follows is the annual spend uplift from 2028 13 billion or 6 billion and it is still not clear
Also Starmer prevaricated over the Chagos deal question
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.
Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO. A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK. A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.
We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.
That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.
Our contributions to the WHO barely scrap £300 million, which is just over 2% of it.
We contribute to a lot of other international bodies too.
In 2022 (I can't see more recent figures) we spent over £3 billion on refugees support in or near conflict zones.
Should we cut that and encourage those refugees to flee further afield, like to the UK?
That's not the driver of refugees coming to the UK, much as you'd like to make the argument that it is.
It's those that can afford £5k to £8k to pay people smugglers, which is why it actually increases migration when countries move out of poverty to developing status.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
Of course they are.
That's one reason why I'm astonished by the crass stupidity of "stop overseas development aid and send in the navy to stop the small boats" policies.
Guess what the best way is to generate more small boats?
"Citizen Panels" are an absolute sham. I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular! https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
If you actually read the responses the guy has lifted from the report, there is usual balance of scepticism, pragmatism and optimism. It's perfectly consistent with broader polling on Net Zero.
PBers needs to step out of the Facebook/Twitter bubble, which is completely dominated by Reform and Russian bots.
I am not sure who put in the worse performance, England versus Afghanistan or Kemi at PMQs.
She wasn’t as bad as last time.
That still doesn’t mean she was any good.
I would say I was under the impression the uplift in defence spending was 13 billion pa but it appears Starmer had added this year and next years foreign aid savings of 6 billion pa to achieve the 13 billion
This was a fair question and indeed it follows is the annual spend uplift from 2028 13 billion or 6 billion and it is still not clear
Also Starmer prevaricated over the Chagos deal question
Starmer has however hit on a rather brutal tactic which allows him to get away with inexact answers though. He just tells her he’s answered the question already and laughs at her for being scripted/unprepared.
Any legitimate points she raises are being drowned out now because she has come to PMQs too scripted and unprepared so he gets away with it. It is rather patronising as she herself called out but she has done herself no favours with her past performance.
Over the last month we attended defense tech events in Brussels, London and Kyiv.
Inevitably the comparisons are stark:
Brussels and London: × Incremental grant work. × Proposal writing marathons. × Grants seen as short term employment subsidies. × AI: Cool discussions on panels and committees. × Leaflet wars over capabilities tested mostly on paper.
Kyiv: × Do or die mentality. × Novel technologies adopted at scale every few months. × AI Essential enabler for weapons used today. × Does it work ? × How cheap is it ? × How many can you build ? https://x.com/DimitriosKottas/status/1894488918793281865
As per my usual post on using electoral calculus when polls are like this - it is bollocks. It is set up for a 2 party system with minor other parties. The surge in Reform completely breaks the model.
So just for one example is it credible that the decent increase in the LD vote is going to result in them losing 6 seats by any serious analysis? It isn't. Just comparing the relevant change in LD/Tory percentages should shows gains for the LDs, then there is the increase in tactical voting from Labour voter collapse in the LD/Tory marginals. So simple analysis should show gains for the LDs not loses (regardless of what actually happens). So where have these LD seats gone then if not to the Tories (who are currently actually their main challengers in every one of their 72 seats)? Reform? Labour? Neither of those seem remotely likely.
I suspect the other numbers are way out as well but that is more difficult to analyse.
PS Just seen the breakdown. It seems it is 5 Tory gains and 1 Reform gain. Bonkers.
The model is wrong. I was also playing about with it and getting nonsense, so I entered exactly unchanged vote shares from the last GE and got:
L 400 C 153 LD 55 Ref 4 G 3
So clearly a pro-Conservative bias in the base data which is not the GE result.
There are also some changes between the GE and now within the minor parties in the model but I don't see how I can change that, but the effect overall is inconsequential.
Had a look at the detail, it has Labour winning Cheadle from the LDs when in fact they are over 30 points behind. They must be using some weird MRP data making assumptions about movements since the GE as their baseline.
They are. On about Feb 10th, Electoral Calculus changed their baseline from the actual results to the latest MRP projection. As a consequence the Labour seat projection dropped from 270 to 201 on the same data on that date, and LDs dropped from 73 to 63.
A bad move I think.
As we remember from the GE some of these constituency MRP polls were absolutely bonkers. What I don't get is when they produce them they don't have a quick look and compare them to reality and think maybe 'Em, that can't be right' and if they still want to issue them at least put out a warning against ones that clearly can't be right. There were quite a few obvious LD gains for instance that had Lab as the main challenger from the constituency MRPs, where they were clearly never going to be and weren't. Two that I distinctly remember were Guildford and Woking. I think Wantage was another.
I am not sure who put in the worse performance, England versus Afghanistan or Kemi at PMQs.
She wasn’t as bad as last time.
That still doesn’t mean she was any good.
I would say I was under the impression the uplift in defence spending was 13 billion pa but it appears Starmer had added this year and next years foreign aid savings of 6 billion pa to achieve the 13 billion
This was a fair question and indeed it follows is the annual spend uplift from 2028 13 billion or 6 billion and it is still not clear
Also Starmer prevaricated over the Chagos deal question
Starmer has however hit on a rather brutal tactic which allows him to get away with inexact answers though. He just tells her he’s answered the question already and laughs at her for being scripted/unprepared.
Any legitimate points she raises are being drowned out now because she has come to PMQs too scripted and unprepared so he gets away with it. It is rather patronising as she herself called out but she has done herself no favours with her past performance.
Maybe but does anyone know if the annual uplift is 6 billion or 13 billion and what is the position with the Chagos deal
Minor Note: I've added Mark Wallace of the Total Politics Group , alongside Sunder Katwala, and Mark Pack, to put a balance of connectors into the PB Starter Pack feed, which is here:
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.
Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO. A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK. A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.
We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.
That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.
Our contributions to the WHO barely scrap £300 million, which is just over 2% of it.
We contribute to a lot of other international bodies too.
In 2022 (I can't see more recent figures) we spent over £3 billion on refugees support in or near conflict zones.
Should we cut that and encourage those refugees to flee further afield, like to the UK?
That's not the driver of refugees coming to the UK, much as you'd like to make the argument that it is.
It's those that can afford £5k to £8k to pay people smugglers, which is why it actually increases migration when countries move out of poverty to developing status.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
Of course they are.
That's one reason why I'm astonished by the crass stupidity of "stop overseas development aid and send in the navy to stop the small boats" policies.
Guess what the best way is to generate more small boats?
Do you seriously think that overseas aid spending reduces the number of people trying to come here?
Anyone know if the majority of Labour’s vote that’s gone is don’t know or is there more with other parties now?
Take your pick depending on pollsters.
Looking at today's MiC one, Labour have lowest retention of four main parties (62%) - then to - 11% DK, 8% Ref, 6% Con & Lab, 3% Grn, 1% SNP, 2% wouldn't vote.
It's an example of how Trump employs Soviet style disinformation campaigns designed to bewilder the public, as outlined in the Adam Curtis film Hypernormalisation.
I am not sure who put in the worse performance, England versus Afghanistan or Kemi at PMQs.
She wasn’t as bad as last time.
That still doesn’t mean she was any good.
I would say I was under the impression the uplift in defence spending was 13 billion pa but it appears Starmer had added this year and next years foreign aid savings of 6 billion pa to achieve the 13 billion
This was a fair question and indeed it follows is the annual spend uplift from 2028 13 billion or 6 billion and it is still not clear
Also Starmer prevaricated over the Chagos deal question
Starmer has however hit on a rather brutal tactic which allows him to get away with inexact answers though. He just tells her he’s answered the question already and laughs at her for being scripted/unprepared.
Any legitimate points she raises are being drowned out now because she has come to PMQs too scripted and unprepared so he gets away with it. It is rather patronising as she herself called out but she has done herself no favours with her past performance.
It only works when you have 400 of your own MPs behind you (you can say anything you like). Try this in public and he would be obliterated.
Minor Note: I've added Mark Wallace of the Total Politics Group , alongside Sunder Katwala, and Mark Pack, to put a balance of connectors into the PB Starter Pack feed, which is here:
I am not sure who put in the worse performance, England versus Afghanistan or Kemi at PMQs.
She wasn’t as bad as last time.
That still doesn’t mean she was any good.
I would say I was under the impression the uplift in defence spending was 13 billion pa but it appears Starmer had added this year and next years foreign aid savings of 6 billion pa to achieve the 13 billion
This was a fair question and indeed it follows is the annual spend uplift from 2028 13 billion or 6 billion and it is still not clear
Also Starmer prevaricated over the Chagos deal question
Starmer has however hit on a rather brutal tactic which allows him to get away with inexact answers though. He just tells her he’s answered the question already and laughs at her for being scripted/unprepared.
Any legitimate points she raises are being drowned out now because she has come to PMQs too scripted and unprepared so he gets away with it. It is rather patronising as she herself called out but she has done herself no favours with her past performance.
Maybe but does anyone know if the annual uplift is 6 billion or 13 billion and what is the position with the Chagos deal
Chagos is presumably exactly where it was.
The increase is too complicated for me to get my head round yet. One complication is that (to my eye) there are ambitious looking GDP predictions featured in up to 2030.
FullFact did an (already complicated!) explainer last week ie before this latest lot of changes, which illustrates quite well how complex the whole thing is:
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
I'm not down with the White Saviour stuff in Africa, I'm afraid, and doubt those countries are still scratching around for just food and water; it's not the 1980s anymore.
But even if we accept that, and I don't because I think our donations displace others, vaccination programmes are a small proportion of aid spending in any event; ours on GAVI is about £400m per year.
It's not where most of the money is going.
I was not a fan of the 0.7% pledge because they should be focused on funding worthwhile projects not hitting an arbitrary target
And there is definitely money wasted - like the £1bn+ we used to give to the EU to hand out.
But the biggest single impact the uk had on the growth of terrorism in east Africa was on funding secondary school education for women.
Turns out that educated women was a man who has a stable job not someone who rides around in a batter jalopy shooting people. Turns out that young men will rather their lifestyle and politics to appeal to attractive and educated young men. Who’d have thought?
Add together GAVI, WHO, UNAIDS, WPC, Malaria funding, etc etc. and you get to a sizeable sum. But in the main well spent.
We need to reduce the number of asylum seekers and immigrants. Correctly deployed, overseas aid reduces the “push” factor and should be in tandem to action to reduce the “pull”. Perhaps we should rebrand it as the Immigration Department and give it the border patrol, DfID, asylum processing etc. joined up government and all that
That's a fair and reasoned position and, in theory, it makes sense.
However, I'm not convinced on the evidence that there's a direct link between our aid and a reduction in terrorism in East Africa, I'm afraid. And there are plenty of countries where women are educated, like China or Russia, who still seem to develop security threats to this country.
I'm far more convinced by the work of the security services, both at home and overseas.
I am not sure who put in the worse performance, England versus Afghanistan or Kemi at PMQs.
She wasn’t as bad as last time.
That still doesn’t mean she was any good.
I would say I was under the impression the uplift in defence spending was 13 billion pa but it appears Starmer had added this year and next years foreign aid savings of 6 billion pa to achieve the 13 billion
This was a fair question and indeed it follows is the annual spend uplift from 2028 13 billion or 6 billion and it is still not clear
Also Starmer prevaricated over the Chagos deal question
Starmer has however hit on a rather brutal tactic which allows him to get away with inexact answers though. He just tells her he’s answered the question already and laughs at her for being scripted/unprepared.
Any legitimate points she raises are being drowned out now because she has come to PMQs too scripted and unprepared so he gets away with it. It is rather patronising as she herself called out but she has done herself no favours with her past performance.
Maybe but does anyone know if the annual uplift is 6 billion or 13 billion and what is the position with the Chagos deal
Chagos is presumably exactly where it was.
The increase is too complicated for me to get my head round yet. One complication is that (to my eye) there are ambitious looking GDP predictions featured in up to 2030.
FullFact did an (already complicated!) explainer last week ie before this latest lot of changes, which illustrates quite well how complex the whole thing is:
Perhaps we need Mr Burn-Murdoch to stop overacting for a bit, and write a 4 pager in the FT to explain it .
Seems Sam Coates of Sky thinks Chagos is included and other things that may not immediately spring to mind such as pensions but to be honest it is a simple question of is it 6 billion or 13 billion which is simply not clear
Britain is transitioning to a wartime economy. If there was a lingering question about what this Labour government was for – what Starmer’s ministry would ultimately be about – this is the answer. It is a gruelling mission of rearmament and renewed national focus on security, in a dangerous world where the US is an unreliable source of protection and its president can’t be counted as a friend.
Britain is transitioning to a wartime economy. If there was a lingering question about what this Labour government was for – what Starmer’s ministry would ultimately be about – this is the answer. It is a gruelling mission of rearmament and renewed national focus on security, in a dangerous world where the US is an unreliable source of protection and its president can’t be counted as a friend.
It's an example of how Trump employs Soviet style disinformation campaigns designed to bewilder the public, as outlined in the Adam Curtis film Hypernormalisation.
Most of Trump's picks are familiar with the media. To achieve the sort of media control suggested needs people to produce concepts from the fake world, podcast it, discuss the podcast or article on social media or GB News and essentially have people question their own normality.
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.
Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO. A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK. A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.
We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.
That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.
Our contributions to the WHO barely scrap £300 million, which is just over 2% of it.
We contribute to a lot of other international bodies too.
In 2022 (I can't see more recent figures) we spent over £3 billion on refugees support in or near conflict zones.
Should we cut that and encourage those refugees to flee further afield, like to the UK?
That's not the driver of refugees coming to the UK, much as you'd like to make the argument that it is.
It's those that can afford £5k to £8k to pay people smugglers, which is why it actually increases migration when countries move out of poverty to developing status.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
Of course they are.
That's one reason why I'm astonished by the crass stupidity of "stop overseas development aid and send in the navy to stop the small boats" policies.
Guess what the best way is to generate more small boats?
Do you seriously think that overseas aid spending reduces the number of people trying to come here?
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Not any more - such is the fear of being primaried by Musk's money machine.
The irony is that by being so spineless and waving these measures through, they are in many cases sealing their fate when they meet the voters. Some of the recent Red-state town hall meetings have been brutal.
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.
Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO. A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK. A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.
We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.
That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.
Our contributions to the WHO barely scrap £300 million, which is just over 2% of it.
We contribute to a lot of other international bodies too.
In 2022 (I can't see more recent figures) we spent over £3 billion on refugees support in or near conflict zones.
Should we cut that and encourage those refugees to flee further afield, like to the UK?
That's not the driver of refugees coming to the UK, much as you'd like to make the argument that it is.
It's those that can afford £5k to £8k to pay people smugglers, which is why it actually increases migration when countries move out of poverty to developing status.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
Of course they are.
That's one reason why I'm astonished by the crass stupidity of "stop overseas development aid and send in the navy to stop the small boats" policies.
Guess what the best way is to generate more small boats?
Do you seriously think that overseas aid spending reduces the number of people trying to come here?
That paper suggests that it's important not to give noticeably more than others, so it's imperative that we align our policy with the shutdown of USAID.
More aid from a country can intensify the attractiveness of the donor among alternative destinations. The presence of a donor in the recipient country, or projects funded by the donor, creates opportunities for contacts between the local population and the donor. More generally, it provides knowledge on the donor’s social norms, institutions and culture, which can decrease migration costs.
"Citizen Panels" are an absolute sham. I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular! https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
If you actually read the responses the guy has lifted from the report, there is usual balance of scepticism, pragmatism and optimism. It's perfectly consistent with broader polling on Net Zero.
PBers needs to step out of the Facebook/Twitter bubble, which is completely dominated by Reform and Russian bots.
I don't think that's really true. There were originally around 30 people* on the panel. Unless at least three of them expressed views similar to those of LuckyGuy, ditto Casino re meat eating, then it's not even close to representative of public opinion. (*none identified as RefUKers)
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.
Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO. A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK. A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.
We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.
That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.
Our contributions to the WHO barely scrap £300 million, which is just over 2% of it.
We contribute to a lot of other international bodies too.
In 2022 (I can't see more recent figures) we spent over £3 billion on refugees support in or near conflict zones.
Should we cut that and encourage those refugees to flee further afield, like to the UK?
That's not the driver of refugees coming to the UK, much as you'd like to make the argument that it is.
It's those that can afford £5k to £8k to pay people smugglers, which is why it actually increases migration when countries move out of poverty to developing status.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
Of course they are.
That's one reason why I'm astonished by the crass stupidity of "stop overseas development aid and send in the navy to stop the small boats" policies.
Guess what the best way is to generate more small boats?
Do you seriously think that overseas aid spending reduces the number of people trying to come here?
That paper suggests that it's important not to give noticeably more than others, so it's imperative that we align our policy with the shutdown of USAID.
More aid from a country can intensify the attractiveness of the donor among alternative destinations. The presence of a donor in the recipient country, or projects funded by the donor, creates opportunities for contacts between the local population and the donor. More generally, it provides knowledge on the donor’s social norms, institutions and culture, which can decrease migration costs.
That’s a stretch. The US and UK aren’t in “competition” for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers to the two countries tend to come from different places. Most countries around the world haven’t reduced their aid.
The important point is that your dismissal of a link between aid and reducing asylum seekers was wrong.
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Lavrov can say what he likes. Russia hasn't got the weapons or manpower or money to keep this war going.
Russia is seriously overplaying its hand. They have clearly been caught off-guard by Trump's about-turn on the Ukraine minerals deal and troops to ensure that it gets delivered. The more the Ukrainians can turn round Russian occupations, the more minerals Trump gets to exploit. Another three months of the Ukrainians not being stopped from trashing Russian hydrocarbon kit - and Putin will be changing his turne.
It wouldn't be hard for any party to run those bullet points, even the Greens with only minimal editing:
We need to get value for money – so much of your money is being wasted on privatised utilities and services. We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax to make them work for you again We need to make work pay your bills, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Green government and we’ll cut the waste and the tax fraud which We All Know is there. Make Britain a land fit for Our Children’s Futures
It's just Motherhood and Apple pie.
Perhaps. But neither the Tories nor Labour can run 'time for a change' campaigns, and Reform can.
The Greens may well pick up votes at Labour's expense, but they have probably even less economic credibility than Reform, and lack the atavistic appeal. As the polling suggests. They can use the same tactic, but they're not anywhere near vying for the lead in the polls.
In any event, I think Farage's explicit emulation of, and romance with the US right will kill his chances
An SNP version:
We need to get value for money – so much of your money is being wasted by Westminster We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax to make them work for you again We need to make work pay your bills, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, in Scotland and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect an SNP government and we’ll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there. Make Scotland a land fit for Our Children’s Futures
You missed out ‘We don’t need that **** Farage as pm’.
Mind you Yoon favourite Wings Over Scotland now thinks Reform would allow a second Indy referendum. I think he’s high on his own supply.
Farage is cynical as F***. If it got him a few extra votes he would happily offer people a referendum
Point taken, but not in Scotland (at least not actually allowing one). Reform is Unionist if nothing else. And given current polling, even allowing a referendum is a risk too far. See how many of our PBUnionists didn't want to allow Scotland the freedom to choose they so loudly espouse in other things.
Mr F's been on manoeuvres to set up a Slab-Reform coalition in Holyrood - and Mr Sarwar has been responding to the courtship so far as I can see.
Starmer described Reform as 'dangerous right wing politics' in Scotland on Sunday, on most issues except independence Labour are closer to the SNP than Reform
Forget SKS. He's not head of Labour in Scotland (supposedly). Mr Sarwar is and he's happy to accept votes from Reform to make him FM. Which means following Reform policies to some extent, whatever he may say now.
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Lavrov can say what he likes. Russia hasn't got the weapons or manpower or money to keep this war going.
Russia is seriously overplaying its hand. They have clearly been caught off-guard by Trump's about-turn on the Ukraine minerals deal and troops to ensure that it gets delivered. The more the Ukrainians can turn round Russian occupations, the more minerals Trump gets to exploit. Another three months of the Ukrainians not being stopped from trashing Russian hydrocarbon kit - and Putin will be changing his turne.
I’m not sure it is. It now realises it has a strong hand, because Trump has preemptively given it everything it asked for, and is now well positioned to ask for more.
They have come to realise, like the Canadians, the Mexicans and the Taliban, that Trump is a shit negotiator. The Putin regime may be evil but it’s not, at the tactical level, stupid.
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.
Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.
The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.
The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.
By which you mean NGOs.
I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.
Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.
"emergency-only"
How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?
An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.
I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.
Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.
In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.
That may come under the aegis of the WHO or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.
The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.
Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.
I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do
The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.
Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO. A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK. A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.
We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.
That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.
Our contributions to the WHO barely scrap £300 million, which is just over 2% of it.
We contribute to a lot of other international bodies too.
In 2022 (I can't see more recent figures) we spent over £3 billion on refugees support in or near conflict zones.
Should we cut that and encourage those refugees to flee further afield, like to the UK?
That's not the driver of refugees coming to the UK, much as you'd like to make the argument that it is.
It's those that can afford £5k to £8k to pay people smugglers, which is why it actually increases migration when countries move out of poverty to developing status.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
Of course they are.
That's one reason why I'm astonished by the crass stupidity of "stop overseas development aid and send in the navy to stop the small boats" policies.
Guess what the best way is to generate more small boats?
Do you seriously think that overseas aid spending reduces the number of people trying to come here?
That paper suggests that it's important not to give noticeably more than others, so it's imperative that we align our policy with the shutdown of USAID.
More aid from a country can intensify the attractiveness of the donor among alternative destinations. The presence of a donor in the recipient country, or projects funded by the donor, creates opportunities for contacts between the local population and the donor. More generally, it provides knowledge on the donor’s social norms, institutions and culture, which can decrease migration costs.
That’s a stretch. The US and UK aren’t in “competition” for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers to the two countries tend to come from different places. Most countries around the world haven’t reduced their aid.
The important point is that your dismissal of a link between aid and reducing asylum seekers was wrong.
It's there in black and white: "More aid from a country can intensify the attractiveness of the donor among alternative destinations." Are you dimissing the evidence of the paper you cited?
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
"Citizen Panels" are an absolute sham. I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular! https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
If you actually read the responses the guy has lifted from the report, there is usual balance of scepticism, pragmatism and optimism. It's perfectly consistent with broader polling on Net Zero.
PBers needs to step out of the Facebook/Twitter bubble, which is completely dominated by Reform and Russian bots.
I don't think that's really true. There were originally around 30 people* on the panel. Unless at least three of them expressed views similar to those of LuckyGuy, ditto Casino re meat eating, then it's not even close to representative of public opinion. (*none identified as RefUKers)
None did, of course. (I read the report itself.) It's fairly clear they were walked through the issues, to arrive at nuanced conclusions. That's pretty well the opposite of how public opinion works.
This baffles me. One of the Golden Rules of my political lifetime has been that in the aftermath of a General Election, the Liberal/Lib Dem vote implodes. Tanks catastrophically. Six months after the last General Election I would have forecast the Lib Dem vote to be at about 6%, that is, roughly half of what they got on polling day. But now, not only is it not collapsing, but it's rising.
How does that tie in with the Thread Topic on RefUK winning the General Election? Are Reform winning some protest votes from the Lib Dems which are being replaced (and more) by discontented Labour and Conservative voters? How much "churn" is there in these numbers, does anyone know? (Or care?)
Having got their third party status back the Lib Dems are a lot more visible post election than in recent years. Davey can get media coverage for interventions at PMQs, there are Lib Dem select committee members to act as talking heads etc. Also there are just more Lib Dem MPs churning out local leaflets and dominating local news coverage.
Another factor is the growing number of paid officials in the party. I am constantly seeing adverts for new posts.
It wouldn't be hard for any party to run those bullet points, even the Greens with only minimal editing:
We need to get value for money – so much of your money is being wasted on privatised utilities and services. We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax to make them work for you again We need to make work pay your bills, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Green government and we’ll cut the waste and the tax fraud which We All Know is there. Make Britain a land fit for Our Children’s Futures
It's just Motherhood and Apple pie.
Perhaps. But neither the Tories nor Labour can run 'time for a change' campaigns, and Reform can.
The Greens may well pick up votes at Labour's expense, but they have probably even less economic credibility than Reform, and lack the atavistic appeal. As the polling suggests. They can use the same tactic, but they're not anywhere near vying for the lead in the polls.
In any event, I think Farage's explicit emulation of, and romance with the US right will kill his chances
An SNP version:
We need to get value for money – so much of your money is being wasted by Westminster We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax to make them work for you again We need to make work pay your bills, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, in Scotland and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect an SNP government and we’ll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there. Make Scotland a land fit for Our Children’s Futures
You missed out ‘We don’t need that **** Farage as pm’.
Mind you Yoon favourite Wings Over Scotland now thinks Reform would allow a second Indy referendum. I think he’s high on his own supply.
Farage is cynical as F***. If it got him a few extra votes he would happily offer people a referendum
Point taken, but not in Scotland (at least not actually allowing one). Reform is Unionist if nothing else. And given current polling, even allowing a referendum is a risk too far. See how many of our PBUnionists didn't want to allow Scotland the freedom to choose they so loudly espouse in other things.
Mr F's been on manoeuvres to set up a Slab-Reform coalition in Holyrood - and Mr Sarwar has been responding to the courtship so far as I can see.
Starmer described Reform as 'dangerous right wing politics' in Scotland on Sunday, on most issues except independence Labour are closer to the SNP than Reform
Forget SKS. He's not head of Labour in Scotland (supposedly). Mr Sarwar is and he's happy to accept votes from Reform to make him FM. Which means following Reform policies to some extent, whatever he may say now.
He would only accept Reform votes to block indyref2 and make him FM if Labour won most seats, on most Scottish domestic policy Scottish Labour is closer to the SNP than Reform.
Not that Sarwar is going to replace Swinney as FM anyway given the SNP are still ahead in Holyrood polls even if short of a majority
Lavrov says Russia will not accept any ceasefire on current lines of occupation, only once Russia has obtained all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as Crimea.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
Not any more - such is the fear of being primaried by Musk's money machine.
The irony is that by being so spineless and waving these measures through, they are in many cases sealing their fate when they meet the voters. Some of the recent Red-state town hall meetings have been brutal.
Yes, the internet is awash with local Republican politicians being berated by their voters, but they’re clearly unable to even contemplate being the first to put their head above the parapet in opposition to the mango Mussolini.
If this continues, the midterms could be brutal for the GOP. Hopefully.
Comments
It might pay short term dividends (to the panderer) but the chances are that the gullibles who comprise his core support will lap up his presentation and so it strengthens his domestic position. Which is what counts the most, since the horror show can only be ended where it started, in America, by Americans.
Needs an MRP to even get to the right ballpark.
I came along and he got up and shifted to the window seat, with a smile.
The kids are all right.
I'm not expecting Williams to be third fastest this season, nor McLaren third slowest.
Remember that is all people giving a voting intention. We know from other polling that much of Labour's vote is heading to DK, which is a big driver if why Reform's vote shares look so good.
Far less variation across polling on this measure than on individual party shares.
What does seem clear, for now, is that the Tories are not yet in a Reform tailspin and are holding the line. FPTP voter muscle memory, the same thing that’s done for every Liberal surge since the 80s.
At this moment the trends are these (and may be very short lived): Reform has grown but for now peaked (because Trumpism); 'Anyone but Tories' has less resonance; 'Both Tories and Labour are not very good' has resonance, as does 'Anyone but Reform' (because Trump/Putin).
This = LDs have a chance for now of being on the up, for the simple reason of not being Reform, Lab or Con. But this is limited, unless there is a sea change, by the fact they only compete in small numbers of seats. If they go over 20%, the climate changes.
I'm mildly sympathetic on these issues, but I'm not so daft as to think the Great British public agrees with me.
The Climate Change Committee is such a joke.
It's done a "citizens’ panel" to understand the public's views about its Net Zero policies.
And hey, guess what? After the initial education session, it turns out gas boiler bans and taxes on flights, meat & dairy are wildly popular!
https://x.com/s8mb/status/1894687280867987533
Did they get a lefty version of Luntz to recruit the panel ?
eg They have also got rid of the staff from a body known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, obviously in violation of legal procedure, which does a similar job to the Financial Ombudsman in the UK - they seek to prevent abuse and fraud by banks on their customers. It has recovered more than $20bn since set up in 2011 by Obama.
They also did some FCA and Trading Standards type things - they were the body who prevented Facebook creating their own currency, for example; too much of a concentration of power and not enough transparency. Others (eg Musk) are now looking at creating one of those themselves.
There's been blowback, so Trump is making noises about not intending to close it - who can tell?
Trump and the oligarchs behind him are clearing out all the checks and balances to facilitate a new wild west for the robber barons. It's another area where he is going back to the late 19C.
As a % of the US GDP, Musk's wealth is still less than half of the level reached by JD Rockerfeller - 1.5% vs 3% on a quick estimate.
As a consequence the Labour seat projection dropped from 270 to 201 on the same data on that date, and LDs dropped from 73 to 63.
A bad move I think.
(They have the issue that the USA claims worldwide jurisdiction in many respects - others here, and Boris Johnson, will know this better.)
President says Russian oligarchs will “possibly” be eligible for new “gold card” visas to the U.S.
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-russian-oligarchs-gold-card-scheme-american-citizenship/
And that vote is unwinding, but they are keeping the "natural Labour " voters who voted LD tactically.
That still doesn’t mean she was any good.
“In 2023, the most common origin region of asylum seekers was Asia and the most common single nationality was Afghan. In previous recent years, the Middle East was the most common origin region, with Syrian and Iranian the most common nationalities.”
“Between 2014 and June 2024, 59,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Around 20,000 of these were Syrians resettled between 2014 and 2020. Since 2021, 29,000 people from Afghanistan have been resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.
“In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of September 2024, around 213,000 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.”
That seems to suggest that, yes, conflict zones are a big driver of asylum seekers.
This was a fair question and indeed it follows is the annual spend uplift from 2028 13 billion or 6 billion and it is still not clear
Also Starmer prevaricated over the Chagos deal question
That's one reason why I'm astonished by the crass stupidity of "stop overseas development aid and send in the navy to stop the small boats" policies.
Guess what the best way is to generate more small boats?
PBers needs to step out of the Facebook/Twitter bubble, which is completely dominated by Reform and Russian bots.
Any legitimate points she raises are being drowned out now because she has come to PMQs too scripted and unprepared so he gets away with it. It is rather patronising as she herself called out but she has done herself no favours with her past performance.
Nobody will believe they have any principles after the past - what? - 160 years.
Over the last month we attended defense tech events in Brussels, London and Kyiv.
Inevitably the comparisons are stark:
Brussels and London:
× Incremental grant work.
× Proposal writing marathons.
× Grants seen as short term employment subsidies.
× AI: Cool discussions on panels and committees.
× Leaflet wars over capabilities tested mostly on paper.
Kyiv:
× Do or die mentality.
× Novel technologies adopted at scale every few months.
× AI Essential enabler for weapons used today.
× Does it work ?
× How cheap is it ?
× How many can you build ?
https://x.com/DimitriosKottas/status/1894488918793281865
I have made my peace with England reverting to their 1992 to 2015 ODI shiteness.
And I suspect many still do.
And now they're going to lose anyway.
So they're not only spineless cowards with the morality and integrity of Trump or Vance but don't even get any cricketing benefit from it.
https://bsky.app/starter-pack/mattwardman.bsky.social/3lfk4fvp5yv26
If anybody else wants adding, put a note here or PM me.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2025/feb/26/donald-trump-shares-bizarre-ai-generated-video-of-trump-gaza-video
It is really fucking weird
Looking at today's MiC one, Labour have lowest retention of four main parties (62%) - then to - 11% DK, 8% Ref, 6% Con & Lab, 3% Grn, 1% SNP, 2% wouldn't vote.
So DK is highest, but nowhere near a majority.
Skyscrapers and children running on a beach appear, followed by, in order:
— Teslas driving through the streets, someone with a striking resemblance to Elon Musk eating bread dipped in what appears to be hummus;
— Hamas militants with full beards dancing flirtatiously in bikinis and sheer belly-dancing skirts;
— A child holding a giant, gold Trump balloon;
— Trump dancing with a scantily clad woman in a nightclub;
— Musk showering people with cash;
— A “Trump Gaza” building; golden Trump merch including statues of the U.S. president;
— A gigantic golden Trump statue;
— Plus Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lounging topless poolside while enjoying cocktails.
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-posts-gaza-riviera-ai-video-sunbathing-benjamin-netanyahu/
The increase is too complicated for me to get my head round yet. One complication is that (to my eye) there are ambitious looking GDP predictions featured in up to 2030.
FullFact did an (already complicated!) explainer last week ie before this latest lot of changes, which illustrates quite well how complex the whole thing is:
https://fullfact.org/news/uk-gdp-defence-spending/
Perhaps we need Mr Burn-Murdoch to stop overacting for a bit, and write a 4 pager in the FT to explain it
Something may appear on the Full Fact pledge tracker:
https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/strategic-defence-review/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/25/keir-starmer-foreign-aid-military-prime-minister-legacy
Some on PB have this off to a T.
He also rejects any European troops being involved in enforcing any ceasefire (which suggests only Turkish and otherwise non NATO UN troops could enforce a ceasefire)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvg1402yyvet
The irony is that by being so spineless and waving these measures through, they are in many cases sealing their fate when they meet the voters. Some of the recent Red-state town hall meetings have been brutal.
More aid from a country can intensify the attractiveness of the donor among alternative destinations. The presence of a donor in the recipient country, or projects funded by the donor, creates opportunities for contacts between the local population and the donor. More generally, it provides knowledge on the donor’s social norms, institutions and culture, which can decrease migration costs.
There were originally around 30 people* on the panel.
Unless at least three of them expressed views similar to those of LuckyGuy, ditto Casino re meat eating, then it's not even close to representative of public opinion.
(*none identified as RefUKers)
The important point is that your dismissal of a link between aid and reducing asylum seekers was wrong.
Russia is seriously overplaying its hand. They have clearly been caught off-guard by Trump's about-turn on the Ukraine minerals deal and troops to ensure that it gets delivered. The more the Ukrainians can turn round Russian occupations, the more minerals Trump gets to exploit. Another three months of the Ukrainians not being stopped from trashing Russian hydrocarbon kit - and Putin will be changing his turne.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24908889.anas-sarwar-not-rule-taking-reform-votes-first-minister/
So what ?
They have come to realise, like the Canadians, the Mexicans and the Taliban, that Trump is a shit negotiator. The Putin regime may be evil but it’s not, at the tactical level, stupid.
(I read the report itself.)
It's fairly clear they were walked through the issues, to arrive at nuanced conclusions. That's pretty well the opposite of how public opinion works.
Not that Sarwar is going to replace Swinney as FM anyway given the SNP are still ahead in Holyrood polls even if short of a majority
Who knows where the truth is
If this continues, the midterms could be brutal for the GOP. Hopefully.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1894738398197285141?t=q0usNnLJXh8qwB8x2kNWFQ&s=19
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/26/no-10-talking-to-ex-boris-johnson-aide-munira-mirza-about-multiculturalism