Weirdly, those who called Biden senile are now silent.
On the contrary, the line taken is that it is absurd to suggest the erratic and forgetful 78 year old has any similarities whatsoever with the frail and forgetful (then) 78 year old Biden.
Because he's loud there's apparently no valid comparison?
How clever Trump is
He didn’t answer the question but no one has noticed that
Of course the "great trade deal" is a way of keeping us away from the EU.
So clever on Trump's part.
Again what we do and what we say to Trump may differ. Nobody in their right mind is going to want to do a trade deal with Trump, such deals are worthless as Canada and Mexico can clearly explain. I suspect we will be doing a lot of deals with the EU and other like minded countries, out of necessity not down to any leaver or remainer ideology. But lets keep the erratic idiot in the Whitehouse smiling as long as we can.
On the other hand Peter Mandelson would love to be able to take the credit for a UK-US trade deal so I wouldn’t rule it out.
Trump is more willing to shaft Iowa than other US presidents. But I suspect his team won’t be
Especially as Joni Ernst only got 52% in Iowa back in 2020.
Because firstly, he's a bit shit at dealmaking, and secondly, and more importantly, he's not paying for it.,
“he's not paying for it.”
Are you sure? US have always paid us for our Chagos work before. Matesrates deals on nuclear weaponry.
The details of our Chagos deal make zero difference to that.
How do you know? Firstly you don’t have details of the Chagos Deal, and secondly the abstract tie in of mates rates on weaponry won’t even be mentioned in the commons debate or written in the details, wasn’t last time as I can find anywhere. We have to wait for like thirty years or fifty years for document release to piece these things together, to know what we get in return.
The point is that it's the availability of Diego Garcia that matters to the US. How much we end up paying for it is a matter of sublime indifference to Trump.
True but the Americans have been pushing the UK to get a deal with Mauritius, to the extent of taking the UK to an international tribunal against its wishes. They may not care about the amount of money to seal the deal but they do care that the deal is in place. Presumably because its own arrangement with the UK is void unless the UK is a legally accepted counterparty.
The unknown up to now has been Donald Trump who has a very lax relationship with the law generally and we might imagine would care even less about international law. But it seems he's following the advice from State Department or DoD lawyers, as have previous presidents.
This is untrue. The decisions of the 'court' are advisory only on the UK. They have no legal weight. Giving away the islands is a political choice. And it is one that is likely to make Keir Starmer's old firm extremely wealthy.
That old "advisory" word again.
But, yes, law does tend to be advisory.
No it doesn't, it tends to be law. The fact that there's no enforcement mechanism is true but beside the point. The UK's whole membership of the 'court' is predicated on the principle that its rulings on Commonwealth matters are advisory in nature.
The joys of jet lag - up somewhat before the larks.
The "Canada Response" - clearly it was raised behind the scenes and equally clearly there's a big difference between the British and American positions but as I said earlier, you don't get invited to someone's house and pick a public fight in their living room.
Fortunately for Poilievre and the CPC, the election isn't next week but the Liberals will be tempted, if their new leader (presumably Carney) gets a bounce in the polls to go for a snap election and if the Liberals are returned, this will be a decisive event.
Conservatives everywhere need to work out where they are with Trump - whether Trump considers himself a conservative or is a radical in the Thatcher style isn't the question. The question is whether there are elements of the Trump agenda that might look attractive to conservative parties and how to incorporate those without seemingly to go completely down the MAGA rabbit hole. Poilievre has fallen back on the traditional conservative platform of narrow nationalism but is that bird going to flay elsewhere?
Starmer did well with Trump but, well, who can say whether the fawning trick will pay any dividends. I suspect many on the left will be spitting feathers. Whether it gains enough credit from others will be the key test. I’m genuinely not sure.
Unfortunately, Trump is so volatile that flattery isn't a guaranteed way of holding his attention. It merely makes him less utterly obnoxious for a few minutes while he's in the room.
F1: right now, McLaren/Norris looking best. But testing is not always a great guide.
Williams, even accounting for the glory run with less fuel or the engine turned up more, looking promising to fulfill my prediction of them being most improved from 2024.
I don't normally follow F1 - I prefer my horse power to be of the four legged variety and galloping over Prestbury Park, the Knavesmire or Town Moor.
That said, while I was in New Zealand, the sport coverage had a lot about Liam Lawson, who has taken the number two seat behind Verstappen at Red Bull.
Could Lawson be a future F1 champion? Is he that much of a talent? Should I be looking at him to pick up podium finishes this season?
I expect many would have been happier if Starmer told Trump to get lost as that’s probably what many Brits would like to do .
But at what cost . As for the trade deal it’s not an all encompassing one , more centred around the tech industries which most of the public could care less about and it’s not going to be some farmers or NHS sell out .
Would Starmer falling out with Trump help or hinder Ukraine. Surely at this time walking on egg shells is necessary even though it makes many of us deeply uncomfortable .
Yes, best we can do for now. The goal has to be that we are in a stronger position next time.
F1: right now, McLaren/Norris looking best. But testing is not always a great guide.
Williams, even accounting for the glory run with less fuel or the engine turned up more, looking promising to fulfill my prediction of them being most improved from 2024.
I don't normally follow F1 - I prefer my horse power to be of the four legged variety and galloping over Prestbury Park, the Knavesmire or Town Moor.
That said, while I was in New Zealand, the sport coverage had a lot about Liam Lawson, who has taken the number two seat behind Verstappen at Red Bull.
Could Lawson be a future F1 champion? Is he that much of a talent? Should I be looking at him to pick up podium finishes this season?
Mr. Stodge, Lawson's quick, the question is how much. And if he gets crushed by Verstappen as happened to Albon, Gasly, and Perez.
Too early to say for sure as he only has two partial seasons in a midfield car to date, but Lawson's problem, aside from the probability of his team mate pulverising him, is that Leclerc, Piastri, and Norris are all very good drivers. Russell's not bad either. Lawson would need to be perhaps the best driver the sport's ever seen to beat Verstappen in his first full season, and would need to be fantastic, or in a clearly superior car, to beat the drivers I've mentioned.
I’ve been busy for the last few days so just catching up.
Starmer, Mandelson, Powell. Smashed it out of the park. Forget party politics at times like this, we need our elected leader and their team to deliver for Britain. And they did.
Trump likes tough negotiators - they negotiated hard. Trump likes people on his agenda - and we’d already announced the (inevitable so why not get kudos for it) step up in spending. And we blew smoke up the narcissistic old bastard’s chuff with a second state visit.
F1: right now, McLaren/Norris looking best. But testing is not always a great guide.
Williams, even accounting for the glory run with less fuel or the engine turned up more, looking promising to fulfill my prediction of them being most improved from 2024.
I don't normally follow F1 - I prefer my horse power to be of the four legged variety and galloping over Prestbury Park, the Knavesmire or Town Moor.
That said, while I was in New Zealand, the sport coverage had a lot about Liam Lawson, who has taken the number two seat behind Verstappen at Red Bull.
Could Lawson be a future F1 champion? Is he that much of a talent? Should I be looking at him to pick up podium finishes this season?
Mr. Stodge, Lawson's quick, the question is how much. And if he gets crushed by Verstappen as happened to Albon, Gasly, and Perez.
Too early to say for sure as he only has two partial seasons in a midfield car to date, but Lawson's problem, aside from the probability of his team mate pulverising him, is that Leclerc, Piastri, and Norris are all very good drivers. Russell's not bad either. Lawson would need to be perhaps the best driver the sport's ever seen to beat Verstappen in his first full season, and would need to be fantastic, or in a clearly superior car, to beat the drivers I've mentioned.
Thank you for the as always informed comment.
I'm not suggesting Lawson will in any way challenge for the title this season - I think some solid finishes are the aim and providing Verstappen with the support. You've made some interesting points as to how and whether he can compete with what looks a very strong grid in a car which might not be as competitive but that's where the great drivers excel, making the best of what they've got.
My thought is IF he has a good couple of seasons with Red Bull, an opportunity might open up elsewhere.
F1: right now, McLaren/Norris looking best. But testing is not always a great guide.
Williams, even accounting for the glory run with less fuel or the engine turned up more, looking promising to fulfill my prediction of them being most improved from 2024.
I don't normally follow F1 - I prefer my horse power to be of the four legged variety and galloping over Prestbury Park, the Knavesmire or Town Moor.
That said, while I was in New Zealand, the sport coverage had a lot about Liam Lawson, who has taken the number two seat behind Verstappen at Red Bull.
Could Lawson be a future F1 champion? Is he that much of a talent? Should I be looking at him to pick up podium finishes this season?
Mr. Stodge, Lawson's quick, the question is how much. And if he gets crushed by Verstappen as happened to Albon, Gasly, and Perez.
Too early to say for sure as he only has two partial seasons in a midfield car to date, but Lawson's problem, aside from the probability of his team mate pulverising him, is that Leclerc, Piastri, and Norris are all very good drivers. Russell's not bad either. Lawson would need to be perhaps the best driver the sport's ever seen to beat Verstappen in his first full season, and would need to be fantastic, or in a clearly superior car, to beat the drivers I've mentioned.
Thank you for the as always informed comment.
I'm not suggesting Lawson will in any way challenge for the title this season - I think some solid finishes are the aim and providing Verstappen with the support. You've made some interesting points as to how and whether he can compete with what looks a very strong grid in a car which might not be as competitive but that's where the great drivers excel, making the best of what they've got.
My thought is IF he has a good couple of seasons with Red Bull, an opportunity might open up elsewhere.
Thanks for the kind words (although I feel I should point out that almost the entire first half of last year was red for me, so take my views with a boulder of salt).
Right now, I think Lawson's going to be last of the drivers for top teams, mostly down to the car. He might also do alright this year, as Perez did first time round, only to then develop the habit of collapsing.
On pure pace, Lawson seems good enough to deserve a seat in F1. The recent influx of rookies also means we'll probably see less churn next season, minus the obvious necessity of a couple more for Cadillac (probably a newcomer and a veteran).
Edited extra bit: oh, and there are rumours that Verstappen (not 2026 but after that) could be tempted by Aston Martin cash, or maybe even Mercedes. So Lawson could theoretically inherit number one status at Red Bull.
Ahem, Prime Minister @Keir_Starmer. That was a very good question on Canada and Trump's threats to this country, and with all respect, you blew the answer and threw us under the bus. Not feeling all that Commonwealthy right now.
Watching Keir Starmer’s groveling performance at the White House today was infuriating. At a time when Canada needed real support, he threw us under the bus without hesitation. An absolute disgrace!!
I had kind of liked him. Now I suddenly despise him.
We should be backing Canada. 100%.
There was silence on here when Trump was attacking Canada previously. It's only when Starmer fails to defend them that it's suddenly an issue.
That's simply not true.
Well, I was a bit upset about it.
But what we'll see now is people who were previously happy for the UK to do its own thing getting very upset about Starmer not standing up for them. #commonwealth.
I’ve been busy for the last few days so just catching up.
Starmer, Mandelson, Powell. Smashed it out of the park. Forget party politics at times like this, we need our elected leader and their team to deliver for Britain. And they did.
Trump likes tough negotiators - they negotiated hard. Trump likes people on his agenda - and we’d already announced the (inevitable so why not get kudos for it) step up in spending. And we blew smoke up the narcissistic old bastard’s chuff with a second state visit.
Yes - if they had followed how the Japanese PM "handled" Trump they'd have known exactly what to do.
Too many people are thinking short term on this - irrespective of the apocolyptic nonsense about the end of American democracy, one day Trump will be gone and I suspect his "followers" will end up either like ferrets in a sack or having a series of damascene conversions away from the MAGA agenda.
America will still be there and we will need to continue to deal with whoever is in the Oval Office, Republican, Democrat or whatever. We've done so before when politically it was very difficult but the relationship has evolved and will continue so to do. Have we on occasion been too close to Washington and suffered for it? Arguably, yes. Perhaps we should have adopted the same line on Iraq as we did on Vietnam but that's one for another time.
I think what the coming of Trump's second administration has and will do is redefine our relationships with other parts of the world, both Europe and, let's not forget, places like Canada, Australia, NZ and dare I say it, Singapore. Leaving the EU was part of that for many people but on matters like defence and security, geography defines a necessity to have a collaborative relationship with Europe without precluding ties with friendly countries in other parts of the world. It's not either/or, never has been, but both/and.
But what we'll see now is people who were previously happy for the UK to do its own thing getting very upset about Starmer not standing up for them. #commonwealth.
What's in it for Starmer to stick up for fucking Canada? Nothing.
F1: right now, McLaren/Norris looking best. But testing is not always a great guide.
Williams, even accounting for the glory run with less fuel or the engine turned up more, looking promising to fulfill my prediction of them being most improved from 2024.
I don't normally follow F1 - I prefer my horse power to be of the four legged variety and galloping over Prestbury Park, the Knavesmire or Town Moor.
That said, while I was in New Zealand, the sport coverage had a lot about Liam Lawson, who has taken the number two seat behind Verstappen at Red Bull.
Could Lawson be a future F1 champion? Is he that much of a talent? Should I be looking at him to pick up podium finishes this season?
Mr. Stodge, Lawson's quick, the question is how much. And if he gets crushed by Verstappen as happened to Albon, Gasly, and Perez.
Too early to say for sure as he only has two partial seasons in a midfield car to date, but Lawson's problem, aside from the probability of his team mate pulverising him, is that Leclerc, Piastri, and Norris are all very good drivers. Russell's not bad either. Lawson would need to be perhaps the best driver the sport's ever seen to beat Verstappen in his first full season, and would need to be fantastic, or in a clearly superior car, to beat the drivers I've mentioned.
Thank you for the as always informed comment.
I'm not suggesting Lawson will in any way challenge for the title this season - I think some solid finishes are the aim and providing Verstappen with the support. You've made some interesting points as to how and whether he can compete with what looks a very strong grid in a car which might not be as competitive but that's where the great drivers excel, making the best of what they've got.
My thought is IF he has a good couple of seasons with Red Bull, an opportunity might open up elsewhere.
Thanks for the kind words (although I feel I should point out that almost the entire first half of last year was red for me, so take my views with a boulder of salt).
Right now, I think Lawson's going to be last of the drivers for top teams, mostly down to the car. He might also do alright this year, as Perez did first time round, only to then develop the habit of collapsing.
On pure pace, Lawson seems good enough to deserve a seat in F1. The recent influx of rookies also means we'll probably see less churn next season, minus the obvious necessity of a couple more for Cadillac (probably a newcomer and a veteran).
Edited extra bit: oh, and there are rumours that Verstappen (not 2026 but after that) could be tempted by Aston Martin cash, or maybe even Mercedes. So Lawson could theoretically inherit number one status at Red Bull.
If it's any consolation, my horse race punting in New Zealand was probably the reason I didn't seek an upgrade to Business on the way home.
Betting in NZ is geoblocked so Mrs Stodge (being a good Kiwi) opened a TAB account and I used that but to mixed success at best. Horse racing in NZ is a very different beast to here but it seems I'm as poor a punter in the Southern Hemisphere as I am in the North.
But what we'll see now is people who were previously happy for the UK to do its own thing getting very upset about Starmer not standing up for them. #commonwealth.
What's in it for Starmer to stick up for fucking Canada? Nothing.
My guess was that Trump was going to pick countries off one by one on tariffs, so it was worth taking a stand at the earliest opportunity alongside the EU and Canada.
I was wrong. But I wonder if Canada should have been part of the State Visit offer too.
But what we'll see now is people who were previously happy for the UK to do its own thing getting very upset about Starmer not standing up for them. #commonwealth.
What's in it for Starmer to stick up for fucking Canada? Nothing.
Interesting to see a big Government bailout for bankrupt Woking Borough Council.
The Council was brought to the brink of ruin by years of financial and political mismanagement under successive Conservative-run administrations and Senior Officers who were virtually unaccountable for their actions (and to date, to my understanding, none of either the Councillors responsible at the time or the Senior Officers have been brought to book).
When the Liberal Democrats took over in 2022 they were forced to make significant cuts to services but now the Government has stepped in with a £96.5 million bailout for 2024/25 and a further £74.9 millon for 2025/26.
I don't understand how things can get to the stage where they're so serious. You'd think there would be checks in place to pick up this sort of problem at an early stage.
F1: right now, McLaren/Norris looking best. But testing is not always a great guide.
Williams, even accounting for the glory run with less fuel or the engine turned up more, looking promising to fulfill my prediction of them being most improved from 2024.
I don't normally follow F1 - I prefer my horse power to be of the four legged variety and galloping over Prestbury Park, the Knavesmire or Town Moor.
That said, while I was in New Zealand, the sport coverage had a lot about Liam Lawson, who has taken the number two seat behind Verstappen at Red Bull.
Could Lawson be a future F1 champion? Is he that much of a talent? Should I be looking at him to pick up podium finishes this season?
Mr. Stodge, Lawson's quick, the question is how much. And if he gets crushed by Verstappen as happened to Albon, Gasly, and Perez.
Too early to say for sure as he only has two partial seasons in a midfield car to date, but Lawson's problem, aside from the probability of his team mate pulverising him, is that Leclerc, Piastri, and Norris are all very good drivers. Russell's not bad either. Lawson would need to be perhaps the best driver the sport's ever seen to beat Verstappen in his first full season, and would need to be fantastic, or in a clearly superior car, to beat the drivers I've mentioned.
Thank you for the as always informed comment.
I'm not suggesting Lawson will in any way challenge for the title this season - I think some solid finishes are the aim and providing Verstappen with the support. You've made some interesting points as to how and whether he can compete with what looks a very strong grid in a car which might not be as competitive but that's where the great drivers excel, making the best of what they've got.
My thought is IF he has a good couple of seasons with Red Bull, an opportunity might open up elsewhere.
Thanks for the kind words (although I feel I should point out that almost the entire first half of last year was red for me, so take my views with a boulder of salt).
Right now, I think Lawson's going to be last of the drivers for top teams, mostly down to the car. He might also do alright this year, as Perez did first time round, only to then develop the habit of collapsing.
On pure pace, Lawson seems good enough to deserve a seat in F1. The recent influx of rookies also means we'll probably see less churn next season, minus the obvious necessity of a couple more for Cadillac (probably a newcomer and a veteran).
Edited extra bit: oh, and there are rumours that Verstappen (not 2026 but after that) could be tempted by Aston Martin cash, or maybe even Mercedes. So Lawson could theoretically inherit number one status at Red Bull.
If it's any consolation, my horse race punting in New Zealand was probably the reason I didn't seek an upgrade to Business on the way home.
Betting in NZ is geoblocked so Mrs Stodge (being a good Kiwi) opened a TAB account and I used that but to mixed success at best. Horse racing in NZ is a very different beast to here but it seems I'm as poor a punter in the Southern Hemisphere as I am in the North.
Horse betting is something beyond me.
Years ago, I got the Grand National winner right. This was entirely because my dad wanted me to place a bet on a horse with a name similar to his recently deceased father, and I backed it too on a whim.
Anyway, the middle of last season was ok and I got almost everything right in the latter third, so that was nice. It'll be interesting to see how easy/hard it is to mix the betting with the podcast. I'm hoping my Tuesday race review/preview approach will help make it easier.
Ahem, Prime Minister @Keir_Starmer. That was a very good question on Canada and Trump's threats to this country, and with all respect, you blew the answer and threw us under the bus. Not feeling all that Commonwealthy right now.
Watching Keir Starmer’s groveling performance at the White House today was infuriating. At a time when Canada needed real support, he threw us under the bus without hesitation. An absolute disgrace!!
I had kind of liked him. Now I suddenly despise him.
I did watch the press conference and thought that was the most shameful answer.
He could have just not answered the question and said 'We have a very strong relationship with Canada and continue to work closely with both them and our European friends" or something and not thrown them under the bus.
I do think it was a mis-step - it made Starmer look unneccessarly craven. There was also a better answer available to the question of whether we could beat Russia. BUT... that said, dealing with Trump at such a finely balanced time was a hospital pass.
It will be fascinaring to read the accounts of what was going on in the background. It seems that Trump had not as good a hand as he thought. Probably was told by Macron that the Europeans would undercut any Ukraine deal if Trump didn't treat Ukraine/Zelenskyy with more respect. Trump's position has undergone quite the volte face. Denying he would have ever have dissed Zelenskyy, renewing the sanctions against Russia for another year...it does seem that the grown-ups have been busy in the background. We'll see how today's signing goes.
But I suspect Russia is spitting teeth. Their entire strategy in Ukraine has been about survivng to the point where Trump freezes the conflict. Yesterday was terrible for Putin - 2,710 casualties, 13 tanks lost, 38 armoured personnel carriers, 92 artillery systems. Russian and North Korean troops under siege within Kursk - Russia proper - with those trying to relieve them being destroyed. Ammunition not getting to the front.
But what we'll see now is people who were previously happy for the UK to do its own thing getting very upset about Starmer not standing up for them. #commonwealth.
What's in it for Starmer to stick up for fucking Canada? Nothing.
My guess was that Trump was going to pick countries off one by one on tariffs, so it was worth taking a stand at the earliest opportunity alongside the EU and Canada.
I was wrong. But I wonder if Canada should have been part of the State Visit offer too.
Wouldn’t be a bad idea to try and get the PMs of Canada, Australia and NZ all over at the same time as Statey Viz to have a grand Anglosphere/5 Eyes meeting and publicly crown Don as the heir to Rhodes and fluff him up.
I’ve been busy for the last few days so just catching up.
Starmer, Mandelson, Powell. Smashed it out of the park. Forget party politics at times like this, we need our elected leader and their team to deliver for Britain. And they did.
Trump likes tough negotiators - they negotiated hard. Trump likes people on his agenda - and we’d already announced the (inevitable so why not get kudos for it) step up in spending. And we blew smoke up the narcissistic old bastard’s chuff with a second state visit.
I can't go along fully with this. Of course we rolled out the red carpet with the second State visit - it would have been a profoundly foolish thing not too. And of course we didn't embarrass Trump by disagreeing with him publicly (though a far better form of words could and should have been found for poor old Canada).
What concerns me more is what we may have agreed to, at least in principle, all for the perverse purpose of getting Chagos over the line. Trump is a fool if he didn't know that the policy was controversial - Farage has been campaigning against it, and he would also know that Starmer was beholden to the policy to a peculiar degree. Though Trump did not offer a ringing endorsement of Chagos, clearly his failure to block it was a cornerstone of the visit from Labour's perspective - otherwise Lammy wouldn't have trailed the fact that the policy would be scrapped if Trump didn't agree. What we may have given Trump in exchange for not humiliating Starmer over Chagos, we could have given in exchange for a genuine policy gain. What we may have instead is a setback to pay for a setback.
I am also not clear, if this is a 'success', what would a failure look like? It seems that we have agreed that we will take part in securing what are now US mineral interests in Ukraine. The US has not said it will offer any component of this force. Is this a great outcome? Yes we didn't get bawled out and slapped with 25% tariffs, which is a blessing, but I am not sure what we actually gained.
Ahem, Prime Minister @Keir_Starmer. That was a very good question on Canada and Trump's threats to this country, and with all respect, you blew the answer and threw us under the bus. Not feeling all that Commonwealthy right now.
Watching Keir Starmer’s groveling performance at the White House today was infuriating. At a time when Canada needed real support, he threw us under the bus without hesitation. An absolute disgrace!!
I expect many would have been happier if Starmer told Trump to get lost as that’s probably what many Brits would like to do .
But at what cost . As for the trade deal it’s not an all encompassing one , more centred around the tech industries which most of the public could care less about and it’s not going to be some farmers or NHS sell out .
Would Starmer falling out with Trump help or hinder Ukraine. Surely at this time walking on egg shells is necessary even though it makes many of us deeply uncomfortable .
Starmer looked bad, droned a bit too long, but did OK. Trump was quite well-behaved by his standards, so probably the invite from Charlie had its effect. Maybe the state visit means more to Trump than what happens in Ukraine?
It’s one of our high soft power cards
Getting to meet the King and have a dinner in a proper castle and everything is a serious draw for people who like that kind of thing
Ahem, Prime Minister @Keir_Starmer. That was a very good question on Canada and Trump's threats to this country, and with all respect, you blew the answer and threw us under the bus. Not feeling all that Commonwealthy right now.
Watching Keir Starmer’s groveling performance at the White House today was infuriating. At a time when Canada needed real support, he threw us under the bus without hesitation. An absolute disgrace!!
I expect many would have been happier if Starmer told Trump to get lost as that’s probably what many Brits would like to do .
But at what cost . As for the trade deal it’s not an all encompassing one , more centred around the tech industries which most of the public could care less about and it’s not going to be some farmers or NHS sell out .
Would Starmer falling out with Trump help or hinder Ukraine. Surely at this time walking on egg shells is necessary even though it makes many of us deeply uncomfortable .
Starmer looked bad, droned a bit too long, but did OK. Trump was quite well-behaved by his standards, so probably the invite from Charlie had its effect. Maybe the state visit means more to Trump than what happens in Ukraine?
It’s one of our high soft power cards
Getting to meet the King and have a dinner in a proper castle and everything is a serious draw for people who like that kind of thing
On that one it needs to be as far as possible in the future, to be a constraint on Mr Trump for as long as possible
Comments
He didn’t answer the question but no one has noticed that
The joys of jet lag - up somewhat before the larks.
The "Canada Response" - clearly it was raised behind the scenes and equally clearly there's a big difference between the British and American positions but as I said earlier, you don't get invited to someone's house and pick a public fight in their living room.
Fortunately for Poilievre and the CPC, the election isn't next week but the Liberals will be tempted, if their new leader (presumably Carney) gets a bounce in the polls to go for a snap election and if the Liberals are returned, this will be a decisive event.
Conservatives everywhere need to work out where they are with Trump - whether Trump considers himself a conservative or is a radical in the Thatcher style isn't the question. The question is whether there are elements of the Trump agenda that might look attractive to conservative parties and how to incorporate those without seemingly to go completely down the MAGA rabbit hole. Poilievre has fallen back on the traditional conservative platform of narrow nationalism but is that bird going to flay elsewhere?
That said, while I was in New Zealand, the sport coverage had a lot about Liam Lawson, who has taken the number two seat behind Verstappen at Red Bull.
Could Lawson be a future F1 champion? Is he that much of a talent? Should I be looking at him to pick up podium finishes this season?
The goal has to be that we are in a stronger position next time.
Too early to say for sure as he only has two partial seasons in a midfield car to date, but Lawson's problem, aside from the probability of his team mate pulverising him, is that Leclerc, Piastri, and Norris are all very good drivers. Russell's not bad either. Lawson would need to be perhaps the best driver the sport's ever seen to beat Verstappen in his first full season, and would need to be fantastic, or in a clearly superior car, to beat the drivers I've mentioned.
Starmer, Mandelson, Powell. Smashed it out of the park. Forget party politics at times like this, we need our elected leader and their team to deliver for Britain. And they did.
Trump likes tough negotiators - they negotiated hard. Trump likes people on his agenda - and we’d already announced the (inevitable so why not get kudos for it) step up in spending. And we blew smoke up the narcissistic old bastard’s chuff with a second state visit.
I'm not suggesting Lawson will in any way challenge for the title this season - I think some solid finishes are the aim and providing Verstappen with the support. You've made some interesting points as to how and whether he can compete with what looks a very strong grid in a car which might not be as competitive but that's where the great drivers excel, making the best of what they've got.
My thought is IF he has a good couple of seasons with Red Bull, an opportunity might open up elsewhere.
Right now, I think Lawson's going to be last of the drivers for top teams, mostly down to the car. He might also do alright this year, as Perez did first time round, only to then develop the habit of collapsing.
On pure pace, Lawson seems good enough to deserve a seat in F1. The recent influx of rookies also means we'll probably see less churn next season, minus the obvious necessity of a couple more for Cadillac (probably a newcomer and a veteran).
Edited extra bit: oh, and there are rumours that Verstappen (not 2026 but after that) could be tempted by Aston Martin cash, or maybe even Mercedes. So Lawson could theoretically inherit number one status at Red Bull.
But what we'll see now is people who were previously happy for the UK to do its own thing getting very upset about Starmer not standing up for them. #commonwealth.
Too many people are thinking short term on this - irrespective of the apocolyptic nonsense about the end of American democracy, one day Trump will be gone and I suspect his "followers" will end up either like ferrets in a sack or having a series of damascene conversions away from the MAGA agenda.
America will still be there and we will need to continue to deal with whoever is in the Oval Office, Republican, Democrat or whatever. We've done so before when politically it was very difficult but the relationship has evolved and will continue so to do. Have we on occasion been too close to Washington and suffered for it? Arguably, yes. Perhaps we should have adopted the same line on Iraq as we did on Vietnam but that's one for another time.
I think what the coming of Trump's second administration has and will do is redefine our relationships with other parts of the world, both Europe and, let's not forget, places like Canada, Australia, NZ and dare I say it, Singapore. Leaving the EU was part of that for many people but on matters like defence and security, geography defines a necessity to have a collaborative relationship with Europe without precluding ties with friendly countries in other parts of the world. It's not either/or, never has been, but both/and.
Betting in NZ is geoblocked so Mrs Stodge (being a good Kiwi) opened a TAB account and I used that but to mixed success at best. Horse racing in NZ is a very different beast to here but it seems I'm as poor a punter in the Southern Hemisphere as I am in the North.
I was wrong. But I wonder if Canada should have been part of the State Visit offer too.
Years ago, I got the Grand National winner right. This was entirely because my dad wanted me to place a bet on a horse with a name similar to his recently deceased father, and I backed it too on a whim.
Anyway, the middle of last season was ok and I got almost everything right in the latter third, so that was nice. It'll be interesting to see how easy/hard it is to mix the betting with the podcast. I'm hoping my Tuesday race review/preview approach will help make it easier.
Oh...
I do think it was a mis-step - it made Starmer look unneccessarly craven. There was also a better answer available to the question of whether we could beat Russia. BUT... that said, dealing with Trump at such a finely balanced time was a hospital pass.
It will be fascinaring to read the accounts of what was going on in the background. It seems that Trump had not as good a hand as he thought. Probably was told by Macron that the Europeans would undercut any Ukraine deal if Trump didn't treat Ukraine/Zelenskyy with more respect. Trump's position has undergone quite the volte face. Denying he would have ever have dissed Zelenskyy, renewing the sanctions against Russia for another year...it does seem that the grown-ups have been busy in the background. We'll see how today's signing goes.
But I suspect Russia is spitting teeth. Their entire strategy in Ukraine has been about survivng to the point where Trump freezes the conflict. Yesterday was terrible for Putin - 2,710 casualties, 13 tanks lost, 38 armoured personnel carriers, 92 artillery systems. Russian and North Korean troops under siege within Kursk - Russia proper - with those trying to relieve them being destroyed. Ammunition not getting to the front.
It's a shit show for Putin.
NEW THREAD
What concerns me more is what we may have agreed to, at least in principle, all for the perverse purpose of getting Chagos over the line. Trump is a fool if he didn't know that the policy was controversial - Farage has been campaigning against it, and he would also know that Starmer was beholden to the policy to a peculiar degree. Though Trump did not offer a ringing endorsement of Chagos, clearly his failure to block it was a cornerstone of the visit from Labour's perspective - otherwise Lammy wouldn't have trailed the fact that the policy would be scrapped if Trump didn't agree. What we may have given Trump in exchange for not humiliating Starmer over Chagos, we could have given in exchange for a genuine policy gain. What we may have instead is a setback to pay for a setback.
I am also not clear, if this is a 'success', what would a failure look like? It seems that we have agreed that we will take part in securing what are now US mineral interests in Ukraine. The US has not said it will offer any component of this force. Is this a great outcome? Yes we didn't get bawled out and slapped with 25% tariffs, which is a blessing, but I am not sure what we actually gained.
Getting to meet the King and have a dinner in a proper castle and everything is a serious draw for people who like that kind of thing
You hire a rebranded live-in-prostitute (aka "Escort") for your superyacht, on a contract.
Can we plan for 2028?