Reaching a majority – politicalbetting.com

System

Reaching a majority – politicalbetting.com

Ladbrokes have a couple of majority related markets. When it comes to the first market on if any party will win a majority, this isn’t a market I am plan to play at the moment.

Read the full story here

Taz

Yip. First again.

Taz

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

MattW

Third.

OT: In Washington DC:

https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/federal-agent-dc-violent-arrest-delivery-worker-video

https://bsky.app/profile/maxwalrus.bsky.social/post/3lwfy4c2a5s23

There' no shortage of these.

MattW

Tanks for the header. I don't see much value.

Wrt to my previous comment - I think we will see some leaks or testimony eventually about the identities of these masked, unidentified 'agents', who act with impunity. USA law around "identify yourself when asked by the public" is patchy and weak.

Foxy

Based on the polling that 5/2 on a Reform majority looks good.

DecrepiterJohnL

Considering only the more likely outcomes gives an overround of 13 per cent:-
NOM 4/5 which implies a 55.6 per cent probability of happening
Reform 5/2 or 28.6 per cent
Labour 7/2 or 22.2 per cent
Tories 14/1 or 6.7 per cent

moonshine

It might be a really weird election with tactical voting in given seats becoming so high it blows up Baxter like predictions, meaning a much higher chance of NOM than one might assume.

Nigelb

Foxy said:

Based on the polling that 5/2 on a Reform majority looks good.

I'd want better odds, considering how far away is the event.

As TSE suggests, trading the market is the most sensible way to go.
Lay NOC ?

TimS

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

But that would leave a lot of church roofs unfixed.

Good morning from a Paris that contrary to warnings from here doesn’t appear to be visibly on its knees.

Malmesbury

MattW said:

Tanks for the header. I don't see much value.

Wrt to my previous comment - I think we will see some leaks or testimony eventually about the identities of these masked, unidentified 'agents', who act with impunity. USA law around "identify yourself when asked by the public" is patchy and weak.

Ironically, much of the precedent for anonymous law enforcement by federal agents comes from the Civil Rights era.

You've got to hand it to the MAGA crowd. They've finally made the predictions about Federal jackboots arriving in black helicopters, dressed in black and with no visible ID, true.

MarqueeMark

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

Scott_xP

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Tanks for the header. I don't see much value.

Wrt to my previous comment - I think we will see some leaks or testimony eventually about the identities of these masked, unidentified 'agents', who act with impunity. USA law around "identify yourself when asked by the public" is patchy and weak.

Ironically, much of the precedent for anonymous law enforcement by federal agents comes from the Civil Rights era.

You've got to hand it to the MAGA crowd. They've finally made the predictions about Federal jackboots arriving in black helicopters, dressed in black and with no visible ID, true.

You might have expected the "well regulated militia" folks to be outraged but so far not a peep

Nigelb

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Tanks for the header. I don't see much value.

Wrt to my previous comment - I think we will see some leaks or testimony eventually about the identities of these masked, unidentified 'agents', who act with impunity. USA law around "identify yourself when asked by the public" is patchy and weak.

Ironically, much of the precedent for anonymous law enforcement by federal agents comes from the Civil Rights era.

You've got to hand it to the MAGA crowd. They've finally made the predictions about Federal jackboots arriving in black helicopters, dressed in black and with no visible ID, true.

They are the party of every accusation is a confession.

MattW

Picking up on a comment from last night WRT Tim Stanley's column.

It's worth a quick read imo, as a slightly different perspective. He's bought into some of the Trumpist stuff / Nat Con ideology but the "Farage is preparing Reform for Government" is an unusual angle. He has a slot on Telegraph podcasts. Potential RefUK candidate in 2029 if they are still standing? Or does he want to be more like a Roger Scruton?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/17/farage-not-selling-out-just-preparing-reform-for-government

Nigelb

How does Europe square this circle - other than by stationing significant armed forces in Ukraine ?

Outside of NATO, there is no credible guarantor of Ukrainian security except the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Europeans can maybe make partial and contingent support promises, but let's not confuse that with a "security guarantee". The US can't be a credible guarantor under Trump.
https://x.com/jakluge/status/1957335855820927467

kjh

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

Your ongoing hatred of the LDs seem odd. You aren't a member of the Institute of Bar Charts by any chance?

Stuartinromford

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

"Someone has to do it" was a large part of Starmer's win. As for the Conservatives, apart from "we've done it for generations", what's the evidence they can govern, can explain how they would govern or would govern given the chance?

The most recent evidence puts them on 0/3 there.

stodge

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

Scott_xP

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

another_richard

Nigelb said:

How does Europe square this circle - other than by stationing significant armed forces in Ukraine ?

Outside of NATO, there is no credible guarantor of Ukrainian security except the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Europeans can maybe make partial and contingent support promises, but let's not confuse that with a "security guarantee". The US can't be a credible guarantor under Trump.
https://x.com/jakluge/status/1957335855820927467

Its time for Poland to step up and show that they've learnt from their mistake at Munich in 1938.

I'm sure all those who've been extrapolating to infinity to show Poland becoming richer than Britain will agree.

There was over 50k in BAOR so Poland can deploy 50k to PAOD.

eek

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

How does Europe square this circle - other than by stationing significant armed forces in Ukraine ?

Outside of NATO, there is no credible guarantor of Ukrainian security except the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Europeans can maybe make partial and contingent support promises, but let's not confuse that with a "security guarantee". The US can't be a credible guarantor under Trump.
https://x.com/jakluge/status/1957335855820927467

Its time for Poland to step up and show that they've learnt from their mistake at Munich in 1938.

I'm sure all those who've been extrapolating to infinity to show Poland becoming richer than Britain will agree.

There was over 50k in BAOR so Poland can deploy 50k to PAOD.

It doesn't take much extrapolating to show Poland is potentially richer than Britain. We keep importing cheap labour so our GDP per capita is awful...

You do however seem to have a problem with population numbers..

MattW

Stuartinromford said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

"Someone has to do it" was a large part of Starmer's win. As for the Conservatives, apart from "we've done it for generations", what's the evidence they can govern, can explain how they would govern or would govern given the chance?

The most recent evidence puts them on 0/3 there.

Exploring one possibility, what would the implications be for the LDs in 2034 if they gave Starmer 2 Confidence and Supply in 2029? The LD strategy for 2029 will be "consolidate first, expand second".

I'd say it would be based only on nods and winks before the Election, and an agreement forced by circumstances, given the LD perception on Blair in 1997 and the Cons in 2015.

The 1997 iirc there were meetings on the quiet beforehand, senior figures communicating but quietly. I think there was a Prospect podcast about it several years ago.

stodge

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

Nigelb

Against this background, western research spending is stalled - and going into reverse in the US.

New research reveals China's transformation from technology imitator to innovation leader in clean energy. China now dominates not just manufacturing, but the fundamental research and patents that will define our energy future. 1/12
https://x.com/jonasnahm/status/1957149278146589062

algarkirk

Turning to Gaza for a moment WRT Trumpist/Israel future policy.

It seems to be that with Trumpism where a policy is obvious, cruel and well signalled it is likely to be the one picked.

With Israel having flattened Gaza and about to occupy, the question turns to the medium/longer term policy.

I suggest there are only two options, both 'One State' solutions (I support a Two State solution):

Declare Gaza independent and hand it unilaterally and fully to UN or whoever, and protect Israel from Gaza with borders as secure as North Korea's.

Or

Declare Gaza to be fully Israel and forcibly remove the population.

I suggest high chance of the second, which I think is being clearly signalled now.

Are there other options attractive to Israel/Trumpism?

Malmesbury

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

How does Europe square this circle - other than by stationing significant armed forces in Ukraine ?

Outside of NATO, there is no credible guarantor of Ukrainian security except the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Europeans can maybe make partial and contingent support promises, but let's not confuse that with a "security guarantee". The US can't be a credible guarantor under Trump.
https://x.com/jakluge/status/1957335855820927467

Its time for Poland to step up and show that they've learnt from their mistake at Munich in 1938.

I'm sure all those who've been extrapolating to infinity to show Poland becoming richer than Britain will agree.

There was over 50k in BAOR so Poland can deploy 50k to PAOD.

The Poles are arming at a breath taking rate. And doing it in depth - building factories etc.

Note that they are trying to move to sovereign capabilities as much as possible - one reason they are doing deals with South Korea, is that SK is using non-traditional arms agreements. Next to no constraints on usage/export of the weapons.

fitalass

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

They lost 251 seats at the last GE. If there is one thing that the last ten years has taught us about UK politics and that is the electorate has binned their old long held inherited tribal politics in what were once safe seats for the main parties and they are now far more likely to switch to other parties in the current far more unpredictable and volitile political climate.

Nigelb

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Northern_Al

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

For a Reform majority they'd need to gain over 320 seats. I cannot see it.

While I suspect we may see NOM, this far out from the GE I'd reverse the betting odds between Reform and Labour. Surely it's got to be easier to get to 326 if you start with around 400 than if you start with a handful?

Scott_xP

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Trump wants to leave NATO

Ukraine joins. USA leaves.

Battlebus

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

What's wrong with English Nationalism? Why isn't there an English Parliament with the HoC taking over the role of the HoL? The vacuum that is there is being filled by those seeking to use it as an excuse for all things that are not English.

Taz

kjh said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

Your ongoing hatred of the LDs seem odd. You aren't a member of the Institute of Bar Charts by any chance?

That comment made me chuckle 👍

Taz

fitalass said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

They lost 251 seats at the last GE. If there is one thing that the last ten years has taught us about UK politics and that is the electorate has binned their old long held inherited tribal politics in what were once safe seats for the main parties and they are now far more likely to switch to other parties in the current far more unpredictable and volitile political climate.

You’re not wrong about the volatility but I just cannot see such a wild swing. Especially after the previous 14 years. Come back, all is forgiven, we made an error. Just cannot see it.

kjh

MattW said:

Stuartinromford said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

"Someone has to do it" was a large part of Starmer's win. As for the Conservatives, apart from "we've done it for generations", what's the evidence they can govern, can explain how they would govern or would govern given the chance?

The most recent evidence puts them on 0/3 there.

Exploring one possibility, what would the implications be for the LDs in 2034 if they gave Starmer 2 Confidence and Supply in 2029? The LD strategy for 2029 will be "consolidate first, expand second".

I'd say it would be based only on nods and winks before the Election, and an agreement forced by circumstances, given the LD perception on Blair in 1997 and the Cons in 2015.

The 1997 iirc there were meetings on the quiet beforehand, senior figures communicating but quietly. I think there was a Prospect podcast about it several years ago.

The LD strategy will depend upon the relative poll ratings at the time of the election and nothing else. If held today they would be looking at modest gains. Who knows what the situation will be by the next election.

another_richard

eek said:

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

How does Europe square this circle - other than by stationing significant armed forces in Ukraine ?

Outside of NATO, there is no credible guarantor of Ukrainian security except the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Europeans can maybe make partial and contingent support promises, but let's not confuse that with a "security guarantee". The US can't be a credible guarantor under Trump.
https://x.com/jakluge/status/1957335855820927467

Its time for Poland to step up and show that they've learnt from their mistake at Munich in 1938.

I'm sure all those who've been extrapolating to infinity to show Poland becoming richer than Britain will agree.

There was over 50k in BAOR so Poland can deploy 50k to PAOD.

It doesn't take much extrapolating to show Poland is potentially richer than Britain. We keep importing cheap labour so our GDP per capita is awful...

You do however seem to have a problem with population numbers..

Being richer takes account of population numbers, so there are already several countries which are richer than Britain but have much lower GDP.

Obviously Poland has no chance of surpassing Britain on GDP because of the population difference.

algarkirk

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Even the full fat Article 5 insurance cover - as UK has - when looked at with care promises little. The reality is that NATO since inception has held the line by old fashioned virtues of faith and trust, along with a bit of hope and even genuine mutual admiration and affinity. That + nuclear weapons of course.

It will sink in sometime that under Trumpist isolationism Article 5 doesn't help with regard to USA. NATO's reliability consists of some but not all European members + Canada. (Turkey anyone?).

We are at the point where the sooner this is clear in Europe, the sooner current USA policy can sorted. Trump wants all the nice bits of getting on with us (tea with the King) but not the loyalty. We should call him out.

stodge

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

nico67

It’s tragic that Europe has to play along with the charade that Trump would be a reliable partner re security guarantees.

I was shocked to be listening to the News Agents last night where both Sopel and Lewis summised that Trump really cares about how many Ukrainians especially women and children were being killed .

The only thing he cares about is stopping the war at any cost to Ukraine and winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

boulay

Nigelb said:

Against this background, western research spending is stalled - and going into reverse in the US.

New research reveals China's transformation from technology imitator to innovation leader in clean energy. China now dominates not just manufacturing, but the fundamental research and patents that will define our energy future. 1/12
https://x.com/jonasnahm/status/1957149278146589062

The good thing is that China doesn’t give any respect to honouring patents so won’t have a problem with the rest of the world just ripping off their inventions and piggy backing on their research and hard work.

kjh

Taz said:

kjh said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

Your ongoing hatred of the LDs seem odd. You aren't a member of the Institute of Bar Charts by any chance?

That comment made me chuckle 👍

Glad it did, but it was a genuine question as well. Although I think I have asked before so apologies for not remembering your reply. Obviously I am biased.

TimS

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

As we’ve seen with the Tories, it’s quite possible for radicalisation to the fringes to take place within a party. Especially a party whose raison d’etre is to be more radical than its right wing competitor.

I would say “if you think Reform is bad, the next phase of Reform will be worse”.

See also Putin and the “if you think Putin is bad” brigade.

MattW

kjh said:

Taz said:

kjh said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

Your ongoing hatred of the LDs seem odd. You aren't a member of the Institute of Bar Charts by any chance?

That comment made me chuckle 👍

Glad it did, but it was a genuine question as well. Although I think I have asked before so apologies for not remembering your reply. Obviously I am biased.

I'd maybe put it down to a "BBE" - that is Big Bad Experience, which for @Taz may be Lib Dems saying "This" and doing "That" and "The Other."

Mexicanpete

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

MattW

Perun overnight (US time, I assume):

The Alaska Summit and the War in Ukraine - The Meeting, Battlefield & what comes next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O-YFdgtZHM

stodge

Battlebus said:

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

What's wrong with English Nationalism? Why isn't there an English Parliament with the HoC taking over the role of the HoL? The vacuum that is there is being filled by those seeking to use it as an excuse for all things that are not English.

There's only as much wrong with English Nationalism as there can be with all other forms of nationalism. I'm not hearing anybody (including Reform) expressly advocating an English Parliament (that seemed a fad of the 2010s). Quite apart from anything else, it would be another layer of bureaucracy and we would still need (were we to continue as a United Kingdom) some form of State-level legislative chamber for those issues which transcend all four nations. After all, we might have some problems is Scotland and Wales had different immigration policies to England and Northern Ireland.

There are already unpleasant pro-English (and it's their model of England, not mine or anyone else's and if you don't like it, tough) groups out there who advocate, amongst other things, the wholesale expulsion of the entire Islamic community, including those born and brought up here or the wholesale removal of the non-white population. That's where nationalism often ends up, vacuum or no vacuum.

TimS

Scott_xP said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Trump wants to leave NATO

Ukraine joins. USA leaves.

Ukraine needs a security guarantee out of a spy thriller. Send Putin a letter.

“In secret, the armed forces of Ukraine have infected every member of the Russian administration with a genetically engineered deadly virus produced at one of our classified biolabs. There is no known cure.

The virus will remains dormant until activated by a switch controlled by our operatives. If Russian forces set so much as a foot in Ukrainian territory after the ceasefire we will press the button.”

Nigelb

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Even the full fat Article 5 insurance cover - as UK has - when looked at with care promises little. The reality is that NATO since inception has held the line by old fashioned virtues of faith and trust, along with a bit of hope and even genuine mutual admiration and affinity. That + nuclear weapons of course.

It will sink in sometime that under Trumpist isolationism Article 5 doesn't help with regard to USA. NATO's reliability consists of some but not all European members + Canada. (Turkey anyone?).

We are at the point where the sooner this is clear in Europe, the sooner current USA policy can sorted. Trump wants all the nice bits of getting on with us (tea with the King) but not the loyalty. We should call him out.

That's certainly the direction of travel.

European leaders are still clinging to the reassurance of US NATO membership.
It makes sense to do so only in the context of Europe being able and prepared to defend itself without the US.

Because while it's preferable to have it, the US commitment to Article 5, and the US nuclear umbrella, when push comes to shove, might very likely be nothing more than a bluff committed to paper.

Sunil_Prasannan

stodge said:

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

54% of Crimeans voted for Ukrainian independence in 1991.
84% in each of Donetsk and Luhansk.

stodge

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

Valid points and as my cobbler friend often tells me "time wounds all heels".

It's far too soon for the Conservatives to be back in the game (though I think Badenoch's interview may have helped so those who complain about anti-Tory bias at the BBC might need to reconsider) but in three years and especially in eight or nine years it will be different. At that point, the memory will be fading but that means the Party will have to put up a programme of policies to attract disillusioned Labour, Reform, Lib Dem and Green voters as well as those who didn't vote in 2028/29.

I'm not sure what that programme looks like - it will need to be (and your lot have done it before on many occasions) a re-invention of basic Conservative principles to fit the time and society. IF that re-invention can be achieved, it's entirely possible the Conservatives could win a majority again but that Conservative Government would be unrecognisable from its predecessors and would need to accept a lot of what has happened since 2024.

another_richard

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Even the full fat Article 5 insurance cover - as UK has - when looked at with care promises little. The reality is that NATO since inception has held the line by old fashioned virtues of faith and trust, along with a bit of hope and even genuine mutual admiration and affinity. That + nuclear weapons of course.

It will sink in sometime that under Trumpist isolationism Article 5 doesn't help with regard to USA. NATO's reliability consists of some but not all European members + Canada. (Turkey anyone?).

We are at the point where the sooner this is clear in Europe, the sooner current USA policy can sorted. Trump wants all the nice bits of getting on with us (tea with the King) but not the loyalty. We should call him out.

That's certainly the direction of travel.

European leaders are still clinging to the reassurance of US NATO membership.
It makes sense to do so only in the context of Europe being able and prepared to defend itself without the US.

Because while it's preferable to have it, the US commitment to Article 5, and the US nuclear umbrella, when push comes to shove, might very likely be nothing more than a bluff committed to paper.

Which requires Europe to acknowledge that the era of the 'peace dividend' is over.

Which it has increasingly been since 2001, yet ever more and ever higher dividends continued to be taken.

TimS

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

What's wrong with English Nationalism? Why isn't there an English Parliament with the HoC taking over the role of the HoL? The vacuum that is there is being filled by those seeking to use it as an excuse for all things that are not English.

There's only as much wrong with English Nationalism as there can be with all other forms of nationalism. I'm not hearing anybody (including Reform) expressly advocating an English Parliament (that seemed a fad of the 2010s). Quite apart from anything else, it would be another layer of bureaucracy and we would still need (were we to continue as a United Kingdom) some form of State-level legislative chamber for those issues which transcend all four nations. After all, we might have some problems is Scotland and Wales had different immigration policies to England and Northern Ireland.

There are already unpleasant pro-English (and it's their model of England, not mine or anyone else's and if you don't like it, tough) groups out there who advocate, amongst other things, the wholesale expulsion of the entire Islamic community, including those born and brought up here or the wholesale removal of the non-white population. That's where nationalism often ends up, vacuum or no vacuum.

I am rather fond of England and my own Englishness, so it’s irritating in the extreme when this lot try to turn it into an English version of 1990s Serbian identity.

It’s nothing new though. The same louts were embarrassing the upstanding English majority throughout the 80s and 90s with their ludicrous behaviour at European football tournaments.

MattW

MattW said:

kjh said:

Taz said:

kjh said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

Your ongoing hatred of the LDs seem odd. You aren't a member of the Institute of Bar Charts by any chance?

That comment made me chuckle 👍

Glad it did, but it was a genuine question as well. Although I think I have asked before so apologies for not remembering your reply. Obviously I am biased.

I'd maybe put it down to a "BBE" - that is Big Bad Experience, which for @Taz may be Lib Dems saying "This" and doing "That" and "The Other."

(Incidentally, imo this is a serious risk for Reform - given the off-beam behaviour of so many of their prominent people.

Something like Councillor Joseph Boam's (Teeny-bopping Leics cabinet member who was chucked out yesterday, for reasons basically unexplained) previous comments around "People with mental health problems should snap out of it".That type of behaviour is everywhere, and for particular individuals it will repel them.

Nigel should have that as probably "important but not urgent" in his Risk Matrix.)

HYUFD

At the moment, Reform are still the party most likely to win a majority but the 30% of the vote they are polling is still nowhere near enough to ensure that. A Labour minority government supported by the LDs is still very possible

Mexicanpete

stodge said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

Valid points and as my cobbler friend often tells me "time wounds all heels".

It's far too soon for the Conservatives to be back in the game (though I think Badenoch's interview may have helped so those who complain about anti-Tory bias at the BBC might need to reconsider) but in three years and especially in eight or nine years it will be different. At that point, the memory will be fading but that means the Party will have to put up a programme of policies to attract disillusioned Labour, Reform, Lib Dem and Green voters as well as those who didn't vote in 2028/29.

I'm not sure what that programme looks like - it will need to be (and your lot have done it before on many occasions) a re-invention of basic Conservative principles to fit the time and society. IF that re-invention can be achieved, it's entirely possible the Conservatives could win a majority again but that Conservative Government would be unrecognisable from its predecessors and would need to accept a lot of what has happened since 2024.

What does the Conservative programme for 2034 look like?

"Stop the boats! Send them all to Rwanda"

stodge

Sunil_Prasannan said:

stodge said:

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

54% of Crimeans voted for Ukrainian independence in 1991.
84% in each of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Come on, you can do a lot better than that.

Poll numbers from nearly 35 years ago....

67% voted for us to remain in the European Communities in 1975, 52% voted for us to leave the EU in 2016.

Referenda are not immutable fixed points which can never be changed - they are snapshots of opinion at a given point, rather like elections.

HYUFD

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

What's wrong with English Nationalism? Why isn't there an English Parliament with the HoC taking over the role of the HoL? The vacuum that is there is being filled by those seeking to use it as an excuse for all things that are not English.

There's only as much wrong with English Nationalism as there can be with all other forms of nationalism. I'm not hearing anybody (including Reform) expressly advocating an English Parliament (that seemed a fad of the 2010s). Quite apart from anything else, it would be another layer of bureaucracy and we would still need (were we to continue as a United Kingdom) some form of State-level legislative chamber for those issues which transcend all four nations. After all, we might have some problems is Scotland and Wales had different immigration policies to England and Northern Ireland.

There are already unpleasant pro-English (and it's their model of England, not mine or anyone else's and if you don't like it, tough) groups out there who advocate, amongst other things, the wholesale expulsion of the entire Islamic community, including those born and brought up here or the wholesale removal of the non-white population. That's where nationalism often ends up, vacuum or no vacuum.

EVEL could certainly be brought back

HYUFD

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

Jenrick won't win back voters from Farage polling shows, indeed for every voter gained from Reform he might lose one to the LDs. Jenrick would be better placed in a post Farage era if Reform lose the next GE to reunite the right

Sunil_Prasannan

stodge said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

stodge said:

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

54% of Crimeans voted for Ukrainian independence in 1991.
84% in each of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Come on, you can do a lot better than that.

Poll numbers from nearly 35 years ago....

67% voted for us to remain in the European Communities in 1975, 52% voted for us to leave the EU in 2016.

Referenda are not immutable fixed points which can never be changed - they are snapshots of opinion at a given point, rather like elections.

I note your pro-Putin bias

TimS

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Even the full fat Article 5 insurance cover - as UK has - when looked at with care promises little. The reality is that NATO since inception has held the line by old fashioned virtues of faith and trust, along with a bit of hope and even genuine mutual admiration and affinity. That + nuclear weapons of course.

It will sink in sometime that under Trumpist isolationism Article 5 doesn't help with regard to USA. NATO's reliability consists of some but not all European members + Canada. (Turkey anyone?).

We are at the point where the sooner this is clear in Europe, the sooner current USA policy can sorted. Trump wants all the nice bits of getting on with us (tea with the King) but not the loyalty. We should call him out.

That's certainly the direction of travel.

European leaders are still clinging to the reassurance of US NATO membership.
It makes sense to do so only in the context of Europe being able and prepared to defend itself without the US.

Because while it's preferable to have it, the US commitment to Article 5, and the US nuclear umbrella, when push comes to shove, might very likely be nothing more than a bluff committed to paper.

Which requires Europe to acknowledge that the era of the 'peace dividend' is over.

Which it has increasingly been since 2001, yet ever more and ever higher dividends continued to be taken.

The frustrating thing is that Russia is surely militarily and economically weaker now after throwing 3 years of blood and treasure at Ukraine, than it was a decade ago. There should be the prospect of a real peace dividend if it can be bled dry a little bit more.

Only Russia meaningfully threatens Europe. Islamist terrorism is a permanent danger but never an existential threat, anymore than were ETA or the IRA. China and Taiwan are geographically far away. The only real US threat is to Greenland, but that seems to have faded.

MarqueeMark

Very detailed report on how the US is losing grain buyers because they are so behind the times. Canada is now way ahead of them on the technical support. They are reliable and predictable. And they aren't Trump's America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0xkZfcB2os&ab_channel=TheNorthEffect

Sunil_Prasannan

TimS said:

Scott_xP said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Trump wants to leave NATO

Ukraine joins. USA leaves.

Ukraine needs a security guarantee out of a spy thriller. Send Putin a letter.

“In secret, the armed forces of Ukraine have infected every member of the Russian administration with a genetically engineered deadly virus produced at one of our classified biolabs. There is no known cure.

The virus will remains dormant until activated by a switch controlled by our operatives. If Russian forces set so much as a foot in Ukrainian territory after the ceasefire we will press the button.”

"Escape from Donetsk" starring Kurt Russell

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

Jenrick won't win back voters from Farage polling shows, indeed for every voter gained from Reform he might lose one to the LDs. Jenrick would be better placed in a post Farage era if Reform lose the next GE to reunite the right

You are back to your RefCon Party notion. One nation Tories don't want anything to do with a Farage vehicle, even if Jenrick is riding shotgun.

another_richard

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

I doubt there are many PBers who have had their housing and money removed.

And if you're a young working class northerner who fancies a career in a trade and owning a house then things have rarely been better.

Now there are some groups who are struggling on the hope, housing, opportunity and money but then there always have been.

The difference is they now include many young graduates, especially in southern England.

The world changes and it becomes better for some and worse for others.

stodge

HYUFD said:

At the moment, Reform are still the party most likely to win a majority but the 30% of the vote they are polling is still nowhere near enough to ensure that. A Labour minority government supported by the LDs is still very possible

Would the nature of the Liberal Democrat support for a Labour minority Government be analogous to Conservative support for a Reform minority Government?

fitalass

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

Sean_F

I wonder at what point, Peter Hitchens drank the Russian kool aid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html

He claims that he alone is revealing "the truth" about the Ukraine war, when every talking point he writes about it is a lie, taken from Russia Today.

Mexicanpete

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

I doubt there are many PBers who have had their housing and money removed.

And if you're a young working class northerner who fancies a career in a trade and owning a house then things have rarely been better.

Now there are some groups who are struggling on the hope, housing, opportunity and money but then there always have been.

The difference is they now include many young graduates, especially in southern England.

The world changes and it becomes better for some and worse for others.

You haven't been reading Leon have you? It's all AI generated hopeless and hopelessness leads to Farage.

See Brexit, see Trump.

I was watching an interview on Keith Edward's channel on why the Dems are so hopeless. Essentially the white and blue collar classes have been hollowed out. They blame immigrants and liberal elites. That is why they supported MAGA. That is where Farage comes in over here.

DavidL

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It might be, if not for the fact that Trump has repeatedly promised to, and will veto any such thing.

The "Article 5 like language" suggested as an alternative is utterly worthless.

Even the full fat Article 5 insurance cover - as UK has - when looked at with care promises little. The reality is that NATO since inception has held the line by old fashioned virtues of faith and trust, along with a bit of hope and even genuine mutual admiration and affinity. That + nuclear weapons of course.

It will sink in sometime that under Trumpist isolationism Article 5 doesn't help with regard to USA. NATO's reliability consists of some but not all European members + Canada. (Turkey anyone?).

We are at the point where the sooner this is clear in Europe, the sooner current USA policy can sorted. Trump wants all the nice bits of getting on with us (tea with the King) but not the loyalty. We should call him out.

That's certainly the direction of travel.

European leaders are still clinging to the reassurance of US NATO membership.
It makes sense to do so only in the context of Europe being able and prepared to defend itself without the US.

Because while it's preferable to have it, the US commitment to Article 5, and the US nuclear umbrella, when push comes to shove, might very likely be nothing more than a bluff committed to paper.

Which requires Europe to acknowledge that the era of the 'peace dividend' is over.

Which it has increasingly been since 2001, yet ever more and ever higher dividends continued to be taken.

The frustrating thing is that Russia is surely militarily and economically weaker now after throwing 3 years of blood and treasure at Ukraine, than it was a decade ago. There should be the prospect of a real peace dividend if it can be bled dry a little bit more.

Only Russia meaningfully threatens Europe. Islamist terrorism is a permanent danger but never an existential threat, anymore than were ETA or the IRA. China and Taiwan are geographically far away. The only real US threat is to Greenland, but that seems to have faded.

I agree. As I have said before we are getting to the point that a Polish/Russia war would be something of a massacre and that trend is getting stronger. The idea that Russia is a conventional threat to Poland and the other eastern European countries plus Germany plus France is frankly ridiculous.

Russia is a terrorist state. They do absurd things like Salisbury, attacking undersea cables and other nonsense, but their forces depended on weight of numbers and they don't have them anymore. If there ever was a time for the EU and the UK to distance itself from America this is probably it. We need them less now than we have any time since WW2. The US has shown itself to no longer be a reliable friend. This is highly unfortunate but Americans have elected Trump, twice, and he makes no secret of it.

Malmesbury

stodge said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

stodge said:

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

54% of Crimeans voted for Ukrainian independence in 1991.
84% in each of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Come on, you can do a lot better than that.

Poll numbers from nearly 35 years ago....

67% voted for us to remain in the European Communities in 1975, 52% voted for us to leave the EU in 2016.

Referenda are not immutable fixed points which can never be changed - they are snapshots uof opinion at a given point, rather like elections.

From a Feb 2022 poll (just before the current invasion)

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

Known on PB as the “Shitty Poll” - because it upset a Realist so badly.

stodge

fitalass said:

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

To a point, yes, but no one is thinking seriously about the next General Election (apart from us obviously).

There's an argument about peaking too soon and I suspect Reform are doing that (much as the Alliance did in the 1980s). Two years from now, politics could look very different and don't confuse the ephemera of national press coverage with the absence of local activity.

I suspect the 72 LD seats are being turned into strongholds which will be very hard for either your party to regain or Reform to gain unless the LDs commit the kind of acts of self-harm they perpetuated in the Coalition years. I also suspect a small but significant number of seats are being worked to expand the LD Parliamentary and Councillor bases.

As for the next election, if you had predicted the 2024 result in 2021 you'd not have been taken seriously certainly on here when many were claiming Boris would be in for a decade at least.

Malmesbury

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

I doubt there are many PBers who have had their housing and money removed.

And if you're a young working class northerner who fancies a career in a trade and owning a house then things have rarely been better.

Now there are some groups who are struggling on the hope, housing, opportunity and money but then there always have been.

The difference is they now include many young graduates, especially in southern England.

The world changes and it becomes better for some and worse for others.

As I discussed with a Czech builder on the weekend - the shit HMO situation is being discovered, because graduates in white collar jobs are being offered accommodation in worse and worse places. They are finding out how Polish builders got to live, in London.

another_richard

Sean_F said:

I wonder at what point, Peter Hitchens drank the Russian kool aid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html

He claims that he alone is revealing "the truth" about the Ukraine war, when every talking point he writes about it is a lie, taken from Russia Today.

Its a variant of:

I hate modern Britain
Russia hates Britain
Russia must be right

It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during "God Save the King" than stealing from a poor box

Dura_Ace

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It would need a change to the NATO constitution then Hungary, Slovakia and Greece as a minimum would veto. Turkiye would need to get something for something. And then the US would say, lol not happening m8.

EU peacekeeping mission/trigger force might be an option but there will be a massive shitfight over who pays for it because it will be enormous and it'll be there for decades.

tlg86

fitalass said:

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

The Lib Dems are, to some extent, a surrogate of Labour. Their fortunes of the Lib Dems are tied to those of the government.

Sandpit

Morning all. My last day in Ukraine today, heading to Kyiv shortly and taking the train out to Poland tonight.

Best of luck to all the leaders on their way to Washington.

I’m still not hugely optimistic that anything can be agreed, but think it’s important that the European governments show a united front at this stage, making it clear that the Russian demands are totally unacceptable and Europe will continue the fight.

Fair play to everyone involved of all political persuations, it’s not easy to get nine or ten heads of government to agree to an in-person meeting at 48hrs notice on another continent.

another_richard

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

I doubt there are many PBers who have had their housing and money removed.

And if you're a young working class northerner who fancies a career in a trade and owning a house then things have rarely been better.

Now there are some groups who are struggling on the hope, housing, opportunity and money but then there always have been.

The difference is they now include many young graduates, especially in southern England.

The world changes and it becomes better for some and worse for others.

You haven't been reading Leon have you? It's all AI generated hopeless and hopelessness leads to Farage.

See Brexit, see Trump.

I was watching an interview on Keith Edward's channel on why the Dems are so hopeless. Essentially the white and blue collar classes have been hollowed out. They blame immigrants and liberal elites. That is why they supported MAGA. That is where Farage comes in over here.

Leon is unable/unwilling to see that PM Farage, who he so yearns for, doesn't have any solutions for that AI generated hopelessness either. Or for that matter any solutions for the issues we currently have.

So after a rapid failure of any Faragist government of all the malcontents we might end up with a Corbynista government or the IMF.

Sean_F

Malmesbury said:

stodge said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

stodge said:

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

54% of Crimeans voted for Ukrainian independence in 1991.
84% in each of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Come on, you can do a lot better than that.

Poll numbers from nearly 35 years ago....

67% voted for us to remain in the European Communities in 1975, 52% voted for us to leave the EU in 2016.

Referenda are not immutable fixed points which can never be changed - they are snapshots uof opinion at a given point, rather like elections.

From a Feb 2022 poll (just before the current invasion)

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

Known on PB as the “Shitty Poll” - because it upset a Realist so badly.

At some point, “foreign policy realist” came to mean “Putin’s shill.”

HYUFD

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

I doubt there are many PBers who have had their housing and money removed.

And if you're a young working class northerner who fancies a career in a trade and owning a house then things have rarely been better.

Now there are some groups who are struggling on the hope, housing, opportunity and money but then there always have been.

The difference is they now include many young graduates, especially in southern England.

The world changes and it becomes better for some and worse for others.

You haven't been reading Leon have you? It's all AI generated hopeless and hopelessness leads to Farage.

See Brexit, see Trump.

I was watching an interview on Keith Edward's channel on why the Dems are so hopeless. Essentially the white and blue collar classes have been hollowed out. They blame immigrants and liberal elites. That is why they supported MAGA. That is where Farage comes in over here.

And yet the Democrats have won the popular vote in all but 2 presidential elections this century and Trump's tariffs and deportation of immigrants measures currently only give him an approval rating of 40-45%

stodge

tlg86 said:

fitalass said:

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

The Lib Dems are, to some extent, a surrogate of Labour. Their fortunes of the Lib Dems are tied to those of the government.

Completely wrong - LD fortunes are tied to those of the Conservative Party.

HYUFD

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

At the moment, Reform are still the party most likely to win a majority but the 30% of the vote they are polling is still nowhere near enough to ensure that. A Labour minority government supported by the LDs is still very possible

Would the nature of the Liberal Democrat support for a Labour minority Government be analogous to Conservative support for a Reform minority Government?

The LDs would be more likely to give confidence and supply to Labour with some concessions on things like the farm tax and a closer relationship with the EU than the Conservatives would be to give confidence and supply to Reform, unless say Jenrick was Tory leader

Fairliered

TimS said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

What's wrong with English Nationalism? Why isn't there an English Parliament with the HoC taking over the role of the HoL? The vacuum that is there is being filled by those seeking to use it as an excuse for all things that are not English.

There's only as much wrong with English Nationalism as there can be with all other forms of nationalism. I'm not hearing anybody (including Reform) expressly advocating an English Parliament (that seemed a fad of the 2010s). Quite apart from anything else, it would be another layer of bureaucracy and we would still need (were we to continue as a United Kingdom) some form of State-level legislative chamber for those issues which transcend all four nations. After all, we might have some problems is Scotland and Wales had different immigration policies to England and Northern Ireland.

There are already unpleasant pro-English (and it's their model of England, not mine or anyone else's and if you don't like it, tough) groups out there who advocate, amongst other things, the wholesale expulsion of the entire Islamic community, including those born and brought up here or the wholesale removal of the non-white population. That's where nationalism often ends up, vacuum or no vacuum.

I am rather fond of England and my own Englishness, so it’s irritating in the extreme when this lot try to turn it into an English version of 1990s Serbian identity.

It’s nothing new though. The same louts were embarrassing the upstanding English majority throughout the 80s and 90s with their ludicrous behaviour at European football tournaments.

Less media jingoism would help, especially when England are playing international football. A match against Germany is not the same as refighting WW2. It’s telling that it’s football tops that Reform have chosen to highlight their identity.

Foxy

It's very hard to see a reason for any party to get a majority, though Reform are most likely based on the polling.

Starmer is dead in the water and sinking. Badenoch has gone backwards since the GE. The Lib Dems are digging in but no chance of a majority. Your Party is competitive in a dozen seats, the Greens perhaps twice that.

Of course it could well be that neither Starmer nor Bedenoch leads at the next election. That being their only realistic chance of salvaging something.

I think a short period of NOC chaos followed by another GE, though who knows what to expect from that.

OnlyLivingBoy

TimS said:

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

As we’ve seen with the Tories, it’s quite possible for radicalisation to the fringes to take place within a party. Especially a party whose raison d’etre is to be more radical than its right wing competitor.

I would say “if you think Reform is bad, the next phase of Reform will be worse”.

See also Putin and the “if you think Putin is bad” brigade.

It's pretty clear that Farage is the most left wing person in Reform.

HYUFD

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

Jenrick won't win back voters from Farage polling shows, indeed for every voter gained from Reform he might lose one to the LDs. Jenrick would be better placed in a post Farage era if Reform lose the next GE to reunite the right

You are back to your RefCon Party notion. One nation Tories don't want anything to do with a Farage vehicle, even if Jenrick is riding shotgun.

You clearly didn't read a word I wrote. If Farage lost the next general election and resigned the leadership of Reform and we had say a Labour led government propped up by the LDs then a Jenrick led Conservatives would be the main option on the right again and to remove Labour from power

fitalass

stodge said:

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

It would be interesting to know if the population of Crimea would have now preferred to have stayed a part of a peaceful Ukraine rather than being militarily annexed by Russia in 2014 and now suffering the far wider consequences of the on going war caused by the current Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Roger

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

Voters like most consumers aren't good with multiple choices. Somehow they'll boil it down to two. My guess is that we'll be choosing from the centre Labour/LibDems or the Racist Right which in three years time could well be lead by Jenrick. It could be Reform/Con. Starmer seems to be growing into the job and the rough edges appear to be getting smoothed out so this far out I can't see how he's not favourite.

William Glenn said Farage is a certainty to be next PM so I offered him an even money £1000 that he wouldn't be and he hasn't been seen since. Often the voters in this country dissapoint but not to the extent of ever doing what is necessary to make Farage PM.

Foxy

tlg86 said:

fitalass said:

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

The Lib Dems are, to some extent, a surrogate of Labour. Their fortunes of the Lib Dems are tied to those of the government.

No, LDs are sufficiently distant from Starmer, the Tories and Reform to benefit from tactical voting on all three.

Cicero

The tweets from Trump overnight leave little doubt that the US under Trump is at best the Chamberlain of our time and he may even be a traitor in the camp. It is something that is only relatively slowly becoming clear, but the European leaders headed to Washington with Zelensky are clearly in for one hell of a dirty, bare-knuckle confrontation, probably still dressed up as a disagreement amongst allies, rather than a full on divorce, which is what in reality it will end up being.

An interesting bet will be at what point the Europeans finally stand up to the traitor President and would they even ask for the evacuation of American bases from their territory. Traitor Trump will be most certainly reviled in history by both Americans and Europeans.

The counter pressure against Trump could be a big sell off in the treasury market, and that may not be far away.

Meanwhile Putin is laughing like a drain as "Agent Krasnov" performs his judo throw against democracy and creates an international system based of force and untrammeled power.

In other news, The Ukrainian counter attack in Pokrovsk seems to have been fully successful. With support, the Ukrainian armed forces can hold off the Russians indefinitely and can even defeat them.

Fairliered

fitalass said:

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

If they got even a quarter of the publicity that Reform get it might be different. In fact, I am amazed that the media aren’t examining Reform policies in depth, costing them and highlighting their impracticality. It shows who the media moguls, including the BBC, really support.

JohnLilburne

Sean_F said:

I wonder at what point, Peter Hitchens drank the Russian kool aid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html

He claims that he alone is revealing "the truth" about the Ukraine war, when every talking point he writes about it is a lie, taken from Russia Today.

When I clicked on that link, the Daily Mail website asked me if I wanted to install Peter Hitchens on my phone. Er, no I don't

tlg86

Fairliered said:

fitalass said:

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

If they got even a quarter of the publicity that Reform get it might be different. In fact, I am amazed that the media aren’t examining Reform policies in depth, costing them and highlighting their impracticality. It shows who the media moguls, including the BBC, really support.

They didn't do it with Labour so I'm not sure why you'd expect them to do it with Reform.

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

For a Tory majority they’d need to gain over 200 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Lib Dem’s would lose a load of seats.

For a tory majority there has to be a realisation that alll the other options would be worse.

I don't see that as 14/1 or 18/1 far-fetched.

Labour clearly can't govern. Reform can't tell us how they'd govern. LibDems won't govern. But somebody has to do it.

And after the fourteen years from 2010 to 2024 went so well. Particularly the administration from 2019.

If Labour can't recover which looks quite likely, I fear the only game in town is Reform.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken the voting public for mugs for the last seventy five years. Between them they have removed all hope, housing, opportunity and money.

So what do we need? A snake oil salesman, and that is where Farage comes in. He persuaded us against all logic to Brexit, he can persuade us he has the answers. Clearly he doesn't have a clue but your lot made a Horlicks of it for a decade and a half, memories are not that short, unless, Jenrick. Your only hope is for Jenrick. A better snake oil salesman than Farage and one that might persuade us the Conservatives haven't been in Government since 1997.

Jenrick won't win back voters from Farage polling shows, indeed for every voter gained from Reform he might lose one to the LDs. Jenrick would be better placed in a post Farage era if Reform lose the next GE to reunite the right

You are back to your RefCon Party notion. One nation Tories don't want anything to do with a Farage vehicle, even if Jenrick is riding shotgun.

You clearly didn't read a word I wrote. If Farage lost the next general election and resigned the leadership of Reform and we had say a Labour led government propped up by the LDs then a Jenrick led Conservatives would be the main option on the right again and to remove Labour from power

I don't think that would be the case at all. Even if Reform fall well short of a majority (say 150-200 seats) then that would be a major success for Farage, more than likely making him LOTO. He wouldn't resign as leader, and no one could make him do so.

algarkirk

fitalass said:

stodge said:

For a Liberal Democrat majority they'd need to gain over 250 seats. I cannot see it. On the plus side that would mean the Conservatives would lose a load of seats.

What should worry the Libdems right now despite being very comfortable the third largest party at Westminster is the fact that they appear completely irrelevant and totally off the radar for most voters when it comes to the next GE. Having secured the seat numbers they did they should have been in the perfect position to benefit from an unpopular main Opposition and a new Labour Government that has imploded so quickly, and yet they have failed to launch or make themselves relevant in the same way they did under past leaders the last time they were in that position with that number of MPs.

Unless and until something fundamental changes, the LDs are in a decent but not great position; though it depends what you want out of life.

Beyond about under 100 seats their prospects outside by-elections are zero. Within that under 100 seats they are the challenger to Reform/Tory and Labour's prospects are zero. So they are part of the centre bulwark propping up centrist social democracy under Labour.

Whether that makes them useful idiots keeping the rain off Labour's roof or a comfortable career choice for politicians who have some sort of convictions, like repairing pot holes and the church roof (good for them by the way) but don't want to have to implement them (plenty of those around) is a matter of taste.

another_richard

Cicero said:

The tweets from Trump overnight leave little doubt that the US under Trump is at best the Chamberlain of our time and he may even be a traitor in the camp. It is something that is only relatively slowly becoming clear, but the European leaders headed to Washington with Zelensky are clearly in for one hell of a dirty, bare-knuckle confrontation, probably still dressed up as a disagreement amongst allies, rather than a full on divorce, which is what in reality it will end up being.

An interesting bet will be at what point the Europeans finally stand up to the traitor President and would they even ask for the evacuation of American bases from their territory. Traitor Trump will be most certainly reviled in history by both Americans and Europeans.

The counter pressure against Trump could be a big sell off in the treasury market, and that may not be far away.

Meanwhile Putin is laughing like a drain as "Agent Krasnov" performs his judo throw against democracy and creates an international system based of force and untrammeled power.

In other news, The Ukrainian counter attack in Pokrovsk seems to have been fully successful. With support, the Ukrainian armed forces can hold off the Russians indefinitely and can even defeat them.

Perhaps European countries should have listened to Trump when he told them to increase defence spending and stop depending on Russian energy.

Instead they chose to laugh at him.

Scott_xP

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

DementiaDon posting Russian demands overnight

I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this

It would need a change to the NATO constitution then Hungary, Slovakia and Greece as a minimum would veto. Turkiye would need to get something for something. And then the US would say, lol not happening m8.

EU peacekeeping mission/trigger force might be an option but there will be a massive shitfight over who pays for it because it will be enormous and it'll be there for decades.

That's an interesting question

Would they need to hold the line for decades, or just until Putin's shill is out of the Whitehouse?

Foxy

fitalass said:

stodge said:

As for Ukraine, baby steps perhaps.

There's some sort of deal out there taking shape it seems and, as with all good deals, everyone will end up dissatisfied.

The history of Crimea from 1991 to 2014 doesn't make easy reading and you can understand why many Crimeans might not want to be part of a Ukraine seemingly dominated by the West. I'm not sure the Ukrainians comported themselves well in their relations with Crimea.

As far as "security guarantees" are concerned, I'm reminded it's almost exactly 86 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and while history is rarely symmetrical, if I were Ukraine, I'd be worried about my fate being decided by more powerful men in other rooms. The Europeans can be good friends and cheerleaders but ultimately can probably do very little.

Will this be a step on the road to a well-meaning if slightly incoherent European military power? Perhaps but it will have concerns and serious ones on both its eastern and southern flanks. For now, it needs Washington to be fully supportive of any post-war deal. It sounds as though there will be some waffle about an Article 5-type guarantee (albeit outside NATO) for Kyiv which Putin will accept as he needs time to rebuild (in exchange for the lifting of the significant sanctions).

It would be interesting to know if the population of Crimea would have now preferred to have stayed a part of a peaceful Ukraine rather than being militarily annexed by Russia in 2014 and now suffering the far wider consequences of the on going war caused by the current Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Over the last decade the population of Crimea has changed. Putin, like Netanyahu changes the facts on the ground.

Sandpit

JohnLilburne said:

Sean_F said:

I wonder at what point, Peter Hitchens drank the Russian kool aid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html

He claims that he alone is revealing "the truth" about the Ukraine war, when every talking point he writes about it is a lie, taken from Russia Today.

When I clicked on that link, the Daily Mail website asked me if I wanted to install Peter Hitchens on my phone. Er, no I don't

The Daily Mail website is, by any web standards, broken on purpose.

It’s absolutely full of poor technical implementation designed to track you across the Internet, feeding ads and trackers, and pretty much impossible to use without serious adblockers (plural) on your browser.

It won’t be long before it’s all AI-generated stories purely to drive clicks into the ad machine.

MattW

stodge said:

Morning all

I see the "Raise the Colours" crowd have had the jolly wheeze of putting up St George's (not Union by the way) flags in Tower Hamlets. As good an example as any of adding petrol to a perfectly good fire.

Needless to say, rent-a-gob MP Lee Anderson has weighed in with his usual incisive commentary.

That being said, the Council seems to be moving quickly to remove them and it seems now to be the "line" no flags of any kind on lamp posts or other public infrastructure (the pro-Palestine flags in my part of the world were quickly removed by Newham and never returned).

I presume this is where the "if you think Reform is bad, the next lot will be worse" argument gets us - overt, unapologetic, confrontational, aggressive English Nationalism.

What has he said now? The only comment I saw recently was a sensible question about uses for a piece of land which could partly be a link through the town joining up two railway paths right through the middle.

I think Mr Anderson may blow himself up politically following the traditionary Conservative method, even though he has moved on.

Fairliered

Sandpit said:

Morning all. My last day in Ukraine today, heading to Kyiv shortly and taking the train out to Poland tonight.

Best of luck to all the leaders on their way to Washington.

I’m still not hugely optimistic that anything can be agreed, but think it’s important that the European governments show a united front at this stage, making it clear that the Russian demands are totally unacceptable and Europe will continue the fight.

Fair play to everyone involved of all political persuations, it’s not easy to get nine or ten heads of government to agree to an in-person meeting at 48hrs notice on another continent.

I hope and trust all the European leaders have agreed to stick together, and none of them crumble when Trump gets arsey.

Luckyguy1983

Sean_F said:

I wonder at what point, Peter Hitchens drank the Russian kool aid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html

He claims that he alone is revealing "the truth" about the Ukraine war, when every talking point he writes about it is a lie, taken from Russia Today.

The piece does rehearse several viewpoints we have heard before - and that I of course agree with to a far greater degree than you do.

What is more interesting is the comments, particularly the most upvoted comments (I appreciate that both can be manipulated, in both directions). Those that aren't just ignoring the topic and fuming about migration, seem broadly 60/40 in favour of Hitchens view. Clearly there is a growing isolationist streak in some of Britain's right-leaning backbone - perhaps more than has been acknowledged.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html#comments-15007387