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.
There is an advantage here that most of them are in the EU and so can't do a side deal with Trumpski to get a lower tariff in exchange for agreeing whatever shite Putin has faxed him overnight.
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.
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.
Trump to Zelenskyy: [Terence Stamp voice] I see you are practised in worshipping things that fly. Good. Now, rise before Trump. [Zelenskyy stands up] KNEEL before Trump.
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.
I don't think the Lib Dems will be worried as they don't operate in the same way as Labour and the Tories. It's way out from the next election and their polling numbers are holding up well. Third parties rarely make a splash in the Commons because the system isn't designed for it. They've got loads of Select Committee spots which provide great opportunities to generate local headlines and talking points. They don't want the media constantly interrogating them as its not going to result in anything useful. In the meantime Ed Davey can generate the odd opportunistic headlines for things he's staked a position on like Carers and Trump. Having so many MPs means they can send swarms of them out to campaign for any local or national by-elections which is how they make gains and generate headlines.
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
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.
He was banned.
Offering someone EVS about a generally available 11/4 shot then calling them chicken for not taking it?
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.
The Lib Dems won 40 seats in England with a share of the vote greater than that of the combined total of the Tories and Reform. There's probably only a handful of seats where Reform cost the Tories a seat.
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.
There is an advantage here that most of them are in the EU and so can't do a side deal with Trumpski to get a lower tariff in exchange for agreeing whatever shite Putin has faxed him overnight.
Not saying he would, but could Trump not raise or lower tariffs for individual EU nations if he so desired? Obviously they couldn't respond in kind.
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
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.
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
What does a Reform implosion look like? They seem to implode relatively often, but somehow manage to implode forward.
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
And there's the Jenrick factor. He is to my mind the singularly most unappealing politician in the country but there's a non-trivial possibility he'll take over and win a battle for the right against Farage. A Con majority should not be bigger than it is imo.
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
What does a Reform implosion look like? They seem to implode relatively often, but somehow manage to implode forward.
Yes, I don't see some big event knocking Reform off course. What might do for them is a general swingback to Labour and the Tories as the election approaches. If the economic conditions worsen, and some really difficult decisions have to be taken, that's where the Tories might benefit. But as things stand, Reform will continue to be the party for those wanting change.
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.
Indeed. A large proportion of their vote at the last election was people wanting to kick the tories out, expecting and not too uncomfortable with a Labour government, and voting LD in constituencies where Labour are nowhere.
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.
Yes. USA policy has switched sides. It's not that Trumpism is allied with Russia, it's that the (wrong) policy is that Russia is one of the global blocs and has a sphere of influence. The Ukraine war, in USA eyes, is a European matter partly determining where the Russian bloc ends and the EU/NATO/UK bloc begins. Trump supports neither bloc and he doesn't care where in the middle of Europe the line is drawn as long as it doesn't kill USA soldiers and doesn't destroy the western Europe bloc.
Europe is no longer an extension of American interests. These are now Canada, Greenland and a Single State Israel. Taiwan? No.
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.
Does that isolationism include not buying imported goods and taking foreign holidays ?
No, I didn't think it did.
No, but I'm not sure why it would. 'Dove-ish' would have been a more precise term. I think most realise the perilous fiscal situation and unlike the Blair days now draw a direct line between the flourish of Sir Statesman's pen in some guilded hall, and the bill that comes down the line.
Thatcher's Falkland's success gave a luster to foreign conflict that has really only now, over 40 years on, rusted over and gone completely. We still talk of Starmer getting 'his Falklands moment', but the idea seems like a quaint fantasy to me.
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.
He was banned.
Saved by the ban then. A pity as I would have given his £1000 to a refugee charity. I'm not surprised they banned him though. It was like having John Bolton posting
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.
Do you see Ed Davey leading the Libdems into the next GE campaign?
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
What does a Reform implosion look like? They seem to implode relatively often, but somehow manage to implode forward.
I suppose it would take Farage to have a genuine skeleton in his closet, rather than the half arsed scare stories Labour are trying to pin on him. Or he could be taken unwell. Or people could just be frightened off by their lack of experience/politicians they have heard of. Even though I am quite Reform inclined, and voted Leave, was a member of UKIP etc, part of me still wants one of the big two in charge, just doing things I want, rather than a new party taking over.
I didn’t really want to leave the EU, I just wanted Lab or Tory to listen to what millions of us were saying about immigration. But they wouldn’t listen, so we had to leave. Even then they increased it!
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
What does a Reform implosion look like? They seem to implode relatively often, but somehow manage to implode forward.
Yes, I don't see some big event knocking Reform off course. What might do for them is a general swingback to Labour and the Tories as the election approaches. If the economic conditions worsen, and some really difficult decisions have to be taken, that's where the Tories might benefit. But as things stand, Reform will continue to be the party for those wanting change.
A desire for change creates a movement, not a government.
That is Farage's problem.
Its easy to identify problems, especially when you allow other people to identify the problems by seeing them on social media.
But government requires policies to solve those problems.
Labour are finding out now that government is different and harder than opposition.
It would be even more so for Farage and his rabble of mis-contents.
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.
Europe tearing itself apart is highly profitable for the US economy and history shows it will defends those interests. Helping others is a by-product. A transparently transactional US President may simply be a catalyst to redefine the national interests on the individual European nations. The penny has dropped with Poland and the Baltics. It's the others that need to rationalise their thoughts with regards to the value of US support and the conditions under which it will be offered e.g. give us Greenland and we'll think about it.
As I see it there are also long-term risks from European political instability, which has been navigated so far by solid political support 'in principle' for Ukraine, but without enough practical support to silence Russia or marginalise the USA, and with the hard "not getting involved ourselves" line. Capability to put more than a token or trigger force on the ground does not realistically exist.
Poland won't do it imo, because like much of the rest (see the recent Presidential Election) they are walking a tightrope wrt the far, or Maga / Trump inspired, right. A "Nato Autremont" structure is possible, but I don't see Ukraine relying on that.
In the long-term Ukraine the only thing that Ukraine can GUARANTEE is self-reliance, and even that could be in question if Putin influences elections, as he has been able to do in measure elsewhere. So the target for Ukraine is a sufficiently strong armed forces etc to be able to cow Russia against invasion - elements of an "Israel" model.
And it may be a good idea for Europe to aim to put Ukraine on that trajectory, as that would over years take some pressure off their own politics wrt far right parties of various stripes. But that latter would just be a pressure valve, and there would be another pivot to a different populist grievance.
I can see an advantageous medium term position for Ukraine if both Trump and Putin popped their clogs; agency would transfer.
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
What does a Reform implosion look like? They seem to implode relatively often, but somehow manage to implode forward.
They're vulnerable because under Farage there sits a quite ghastly cast of supporters and activists. Thousands upon thousands of accidents waiting to happen.
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.
Does that isolationism include not buying imported goods and taking foreign holidays ?
No, I didn't think it did.
No, but I'm not sure why it would. 'Dove-ish' would have been a more precise term. I think most realise the perilous fiscal situation and unlike the Blair days now draw a direct line between the flourish of Sir Statesman's pen in some guilded hall, and the bill that comes down the line.
Thatcher's Falkland's success gave a luster to foreign conflict that has really only now, over 40 years on, rusted over and gone completely. We still talk of Starmer getting 'his Falklands moment', but the idea seems like a quaint fantasy to me.
That's fair as regards Middle Eastern meddling but Europe is more existential.
That said it is up to Poland to step up and lead any response backed up the countries to its west.
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.
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
What does a Reform implosion look like? They seem to implode relatively often, but somehow manage to implode forward.
I suppose it would take Farage to have a genuine skeleton in his closet, rather than the half arsed scare stories Labour are trying to pin on him. Or he could be taken unwell. Or people could just be frightened off by their lack of experience/politicians they have heard of. Even though I am quite Reform inclined, and voted Leave, was a member of UKIP etc, part of me still wants one of the big two in charge, just doing things I want, rather than a new party taking over.
I didn’t really want to leave the EU, I just wanted Lab or Tory to listen to what millions of us were saying about immigration. But they wouldn’t listen, so we had to leave. Even then they increased it!
As with Trump, there’s almost no chance that there’s a massive skeleton in Farage’s closet. He’s been front and centre in politics for more than a decade, if there was something to find it would have come out by now.
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.
Do you see Ed Davey leading the Libdems into the next GE campaign?
There's absolutely no way the Lib Dems will unseat Davey before the next GE, shirley?
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.
Do you see Ed Davey leading the Libdems into the next GE campaign?
There's absolutely no way the Lib Dems will unseat Davey before the next GE, shirley?
He has the job unless he decides to retire from the role voluntarily (or he turns up in the Epstein files or something).
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
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.
Indeed.
Its revealing that the Putinists have switched to spouting 'Russia can fight forever'.
If you call driving quadbikes into minefields as 'fighting'.
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.
The Lib Dems won 40 seats in England with a share of the vote greater than that of the combined total of the Tories and Reform. There's probably only a handful of seats where Reform cost the Tories a seat.
Morning all. If Reform and the Tories come to an 'arrangenent' then the LD seats (Inverness aside) down the defence to Chelmsford would probably drop on an 'otherwise everything the same' basis, so 18 to 20 seats, but such an arrangement is unlikely. The Tories will be relying on a blue wall recovery and a slip in LD vote efficiency/tactical unwind which might bring something around the same seats into play. All depends of course on where they both sit going into a campaign. The emergence of YP isnt going to help the LDs with the younger voters or with carving out a position left of centre that attracts attention (crowded field), but conversely the continued fascination with fag ash Farage isnt going to help the Tories. I cant see the LDs hanging on to 72 seats without increasing national vote share and I cant see them increasing national vote share next time but I also don't see them going below 50 seats as it stands and probably not below 60 unless they start polling at the under 12% level regularly. Unless and until the Lib Dems can repeat the efficiency of 2024, it should be considered an outlier imo
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.
Do you see Ed Davey leading the Libdems into the next GE campaign?
There's absolutely no way the Lib Dems will unseat Davey before the next GE, shirley?
He has the job unless he decides to retire from the role voluntarily (or he turns up in the Epstein files or something).
I believe Epstein reserved his attentions for the powerful and connected.
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.
But that has always been their way. There are large numbers of Russian speakers in Eastern Europe brought in from (very poor) places like Siberia. They are pro-Putin as they've become the underdogs having had the upper hand in previous decades.
Mind you, Britain moved its own population into it's areas of interest in the past, so it's not just a Russian thing.
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.
The Lib Dems won 40 seats in England with a share of the vote greater than that of the combined total of the Tories and Reform. There's probably only a handful of seats where Reform cost the Tories a seat.
Morning all. If Reform and the Tories come to an 'arrangenent' then the LD seats (Inverness aside) down the defence to Chelmsford would probably drop on an 'otherwise everything the same' basis, so 18 to 20 seats, but such an arrangement is unlikely. The Tories will be relying on a blue wall recovery and a slip in LD vote efficiency/tactical unwind which might bring something around the same seats into play. All depends of course on where they both sit going into a campaign. The emergence of YP isnt going to help the LDs with the younger voters or with carving out a position left of centre that attracts attention (crowded field), but conversely the continued fascination with fag ash Farage isnt going to help the Tories. I cant see the LDs hanging on to 72 seats without increasing national vote share and I cant see them increasing national vote share next time but I also don't see them going below 50 seats as it stands and probably not below 60 unless they start polling at the under 12% level regularly. Unless and until the Lib Dems can repeat the efficiency of 2024, it should be considered an outlier imo
The Labour Party shedding votes is almost entirely to the left and DK rather than Reform. It shouldn't be too hard to hoover those up for the LDs in target seats.
Last GE was a low turnout election except notably in LD gains where the turnout was generally well above the national average.
I wonder if Ukraine joining NATO is the only way out of this
Even that is devalued now. Underpinning it is the understanding that the US will treat an attack on any member as an attack on itself and respond accordingly. NATO countries knowing that gives security. Russia knowing that means they don't do it. That's gone. The US might or might not respect the commitment. That it's in a treaty makes little difference.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
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.
The Lib Dems won 40 seats in England with a share of the vote greater than that of the combined total of the Tories and Reform. There's probably only a handful of seats where Reform cost the Tories a seat.
Morning all. If Reform and the Tories come to an 'arrangenent' then the LD seats (Inverness aside) down the defence to Chelmsford would probably drop on an 'otherwise everything the same' basis, so 18 to 20 seats, but such an arrangement is unlikely. The Tories will be relying on a blue wall recovery and a slip in LD vote efficiency/tactical unwind which might bring something around the same seats into play. All depends of course on where they both sit going into a campaign. The emergence of YP isnt going to help the LDs with the younger voters or with carving out a position left of centre that attracts attention (crowded field), but conversely the continued fascination with fag ash Farage isnt going to help the Tories. I cant see the LDs hanging on to 72 seats without increasing national vote share and I cant see them increasing national vote share next time but I also don't see them going below 50 seats as it stands and probably not below 60 unless they start polling at the under 12% level regularly. Unless and until the Lib Dems can repeat the efficiency of 2024, it should be considered an outlier imo
The Labour Party shedding votes is almost entirely to the left and DK rather than Reform. It shouldn't be too hard to hoover those up for the LDs in target seats.
Last GE was a low turnout election except notably in LD gains where the turnout was generally well above the national average.
Well I've said what I think will or may happen and why and what will influence that. Other opinions will exist.
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.
Whilst I believe that competition improves things for users, the success of the Mail website is a good counterexample.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I understand that sentiment. Zelensky was elected as an outsider, on a platform of kicking out the corruption, and there was some evidence of this starting to work before he had a much more important job to do.
I think that there is positivity here in Ukraine at the moment despite the war, which has obviously been a defining moment in the lives of millions of Ukranians. I agree that after the war the country will look even more to the West than before, with a huge opportunity in front of them to develop economically as a nation. As well as the natural resources they also now have an astonishing defence industry, from which every Western nation should be learning.
As has been said many times, military procurement in times of war looks very different to that in times of peace, and Europe needs to be arming itself for a restoration of the Cold War, which means having weapons in quantity over quality. Oh, and ammunition, loads and loads of ammunition.
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
In the event of Reform winning a majority, Leon would be cursing Farage as a traitor, and trying to come to terms with how he was fooled into voting for yet another dud.
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.
The Lib Dems won 40 seats in England with a share of the vote greater than that of the combined total of the Tories and Reform. There's probably only a handful of seats where Reform cost the Tories a seat.
Morning all. If Reform and the Tories come to an 'arrangenent' then the LD seats (Inverness aside) down the defence to Chelmsford would probably drop on an 'otherwise everything the same' basis, so 18 to 20 seats, but such an arrangement is unlikely. The Tories will be relying on a blue wall recovery and a slip in LD vote efficiency/tactical unwind which might bring something around the same seats into play. All depends of course on where they both sit going into a campaign. The emergence of YP isnt going to help the LDs with the younger voters or with carving out a position left of centre that attracts attention (crowded field), but conversely the continued fascination with fag ash Farage isnt going to help the Tories. I cant see the LDs hanging on to 72 seats without increasing national vote share and I cant see them increasing national vote share next time but I also don't see them going below 50 seats as it stands and probably not below 60 unless they start polling at the under 12% level regularly. Unless and until the Lib Dems can repeat the efficiency of 2024, it should be considered an outlier imo
The Labour Party shedding votes is almost entirely to the left and DK rather than Reform. It shouldn't be too hard to hoover those up for the LDs in target seats.
Last GE was a low turnout election except notably in LD gains where the turnout was generally well above the national average.
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.
Indeed.
Its revealing that the Putinists have switched to spouting 'Russia can fight forever'.
If you call driving quadbikes into minefields as 'fighting'.
Meanwhile the evidence on the ground is that they are pretty much out of land-war equipment, and the wider economy is teetering on the edge of collapse under Western sanctions and Ukranian ‘kinetic sanctions’ on O&G facilities.
The latest reporting is that parts of the Far East are now struggling to get petrol stations supplied, with fuel trains diverted towards the war effort. Russia is a big place, and relies heavily on train logistics.
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.
Indeed.
Its revealing that the Putinists have switched to spouting 'Russia can fight forever'.
If you call driving quadbikes into minefields as 'fighting'.
Meanwhile the evidence on the ground is that they are pretty much out of land-war equipment, and the wider economy is teetering on the edge of collapse under Western sanctions and Ukranian ‘kinetic sanctions’ on O&G facilities.
The latest reporting is that parts of the Far East are now struggling to get petrol stations supplied, with fuel trains diverted towards the war effort. Russia is a big place, and relies heavily on train logistics.
I quite like the references to the "Russian Branch of Just Stop Oil."
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.
Whilst I believe that competition improves things for users, the success of the Mail website is a good counterexample.
Technological enshittification is a real thing, and has been going on for a decade or more.
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.
If say Reform got 140 seats and the Tories 160 then that would be a clear failure for Farage, despite the seat gains. Not only would they have failed to beat Labour they would have failed to beat the Tories to become the main party of the right in likely their best chance ever to do so.
Farage could well resign in that scenario, especially as the Tories would replace a defeated Badenoch/Stride with an even more rightwing leader like Jenrick more appealing to Reform voters
I haven’t had a bet, but quite like the 14/1 or bigger Con Maj. If Reform implode it will obviously benefit all other parties, but I reckon the Tories mostly. Those angry at the current govt are probably going to sit on their hands or vote Tory in that scenario
What does a Reform implosion look like? They seem to implode relatively often, but somehow manage to implode forward.
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.
He was banned.
For a day - his account is active but he hasn’t posted since the ban
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I understand that sentiment. Zelensky was elected as an outsider, on a platform of kicking out the corruption, and there was some evidence of this starting to work before he had a much more important job to do.
I think that there is positivity here in Ukraine at the moment despite the war, which has obviously been a defining moment in the lives of millions of Ukranians. I agree that after the war the country will look even more to the West than before, with a huge opportunity in front of them to develop economically as a nation. As well as the natural resources they also now have an astonishing defence industry, from which every Western nation should be learning.
As has been said many times, military procurement in times of war looks very different to that in times of peace, and Europe needs to be arming itself for a restoration of the Cold War, which means having weapons in quantity over quality. Oh, and ammunition, loads and loads of ammunition.
If the war ends then the elections that follow will tell us a lot about what Ukraine wants for its future
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.
Do you see Ed Davey leading the Libdems into the next GE campaign?
There's absolutely no way the Lib Dems will unseat Davey before the next GE, shirley?
Accrington Stanley Liberal Democrats? Who are they?
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I understand that sentiment. Zelensky was elected as an outsider, on a platform of kicking out the corruption, and there was some evidence of this starting to work before he had a much more important job to do.
I think that there is positivity here in Ukraine at the moment despite the war, which has obviously been a defining moment in the lives of millions of Ukranians. I agree that after the war the country will look even more to the West than before, with a huge opportunity in front of them to develop economically as a nation. As well as the natural resources they also now have an astonishing defence industry, from which every Western nation should be learning.
As has been said many times, military procurement in times of war looks very different to that in times of peace, and Europe needs to be arming itself for a restoration of the Cold War, which means having weapons in quantity over quality. Oh, and ammunition, loads and loads of ammunition.
Europe also needs to build up its own armaments industry, and not rely on Trump’s America. That might also be a wake up call to the American military industrial complex.
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.
If say Reform got 140 seats and the Tories 160 then that would be a clear failure for Farage, despite the seat gains. Not only would they have failed to beat Labour they would have failed to beat the Tories to become the main party of the right in likely their best chance ever to do so.
Farage could well resign in that scenario, especially as the Tories would replace a defeated Badenoch/Stride with an even more rightwing leader like Jenrick more appealing to Reform voters
Farage isnt hanging about if he fails to become PM this time.
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.
Do you see Ed Davey leading the Libdems into the next GE campaign?
There's absolutely no way the Lib Dems will unseat Davey before the next GE, shirley?
He has the job unless he decides to retire from the role voluntarily (or he turns up in the Epstein files or something).
I believe Epstein reserved his attentions for the powerful and connected.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
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.
If say Reform got 140 seats and the Tories 160 then that would be a clear failure for Farage, despite the seat gains. Not only would they have failed to beat Labour they would have failed to beat the Tories to become the main party of the right in likely their best chance ever to do so.
Farage could well resign in that scenario, especially as the Tories would replace a defeated Badenoch/Stride with an even more rightwing leader like Jenrick more appealing to Reform voters
Farage isnt hanging about if he fails to become PM this time.
Yes, this is it for Farage, he failed to become PM in 2015 or 2024, it is third time lucky for him in his best chance ever to make it as his party now lead polls or at the age of 65 after the next GE he is done
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.
If say Reform got 140 seats and the Tories 160 then that would be a clear failure for Farage, despite the seat gains. Not only would they have failed to beat Labour they would have failed to beat the Tories to become the main party of the right in likely their best chance ever to do so.
Farage could well resign in that scenario, especially as the Tories would replace a defeated Badenoch/Stride with an even more rightwing leader like Jenrick more appealing to Reform voters
Farage isnt hanging about if he fails to become PM this time.
Yes, this is it for Farage, he failed to become PM in 2015 or 2024, it is third time lucky for him in his best chance ever to make it as his party now lead polls or at the age of 65 after the next GE he is done
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I understand that sentiment. Zelensky was elected as an outsider, on a platform of kicking out the corruption, and there was some evidence of this starting to work before he had a much more important job to do.
I think that there is positivity here in Ukraine at the moment despite the war, which has obviously been a defining moment in the lives of millions of Ukranians. I agree that after the war the country will look even more to the West than before, with a huge opportunity in front of them to develop economically as a nation. As well as the natural resources they also now have an astonishing defence industry, from which every Western nation should be learning.
As has been said many times, military procurement in times of war looks very different to that in times of peace, and Europe needs to be arming itself for a restoration of the Cold War, which means having weapons in quantity over quality. Oh, and ammunition, loads and loads of ammunition.
If the war ends then the elections that follow will tell us a lot about what Ukraine wants for its future
The actual process of Ukranian elections after the war is going to be horrific.
Not only are there millions of Ukranians displaced around the world, there’s also possibly several hundred thousand that have been kidnapped by Russia. Just the process of registering everyone is going to take months, and require a lot of international observation.
But yes, the country needs to decaide if they look West or if they look East. I know what I think from my time here, but I have seen only a snapshot of the country. All we can do is observe as they make their decision, and ensure the process is as fair as possible.
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
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
Their aim is to make sure that an independent Ukraine isn't successful. That doesn't preclude trying to make those parts of it that are under Russian control a land of milk and honey - or at least not a hell hole with people desperate to cross the border into Free Ukraine.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I understand that sentiment. Zelensky was elected as an outsider, on a platform of kicking out the corruption, and there was some evidence of this starting to work before he had a much more important job to do.
I think that there is positivity here in Ukraine at the moment despite the war, which has obviously been a defining moment in the lives of millions of Ukranians. I agree that after the war the country will look even more to the West than before, with a huge opportunity in front of them to develop economically as a nation. As well as the natural resources they also now have an astonishing defence industry, from which every Western nation should be learning.
As has been said many times, military procurement in times of war looks very different to that in times of peace, and Europe needs to be arming itself for a restoration of the Cold War, which means having weapons in quantity over quality. Oh, and ammunition, loads and loads of ammunition.
If the war ends then the elections that follow will tell us a lot about what Ukraine wants for its future
The actual process of Ukranian elections after the war is going to be horrific.
Not only are there millions of Ukranians displaced around the world, there’s also possibly several hundred thousand that have been kidnapped by Russia. Just the process of registering everyone is going to take months, and require a lot of international observation.
But yes, the country needs to decide if they look West or if they look East. I know what I think from my time here, but I have seen only a snapshot of the country. All we can do is observe as they make their decision, and ensure the process is as fair as possible.
As you say, it's their choice. As was the decision to resist the invasion.
But if they wish to remain an independent nation, which seems to be the case, then they have little option, both economically and militarily, but to ally with the west. Any alliance with Russia is necessarily subservient, and won't provide anything economically.
And on the other side, it is very much in Europe's interest to ally with Ukraine.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
Their aim is to make sure that an independent Ukraine isn't successful. That doesn't preclude trying to make those parts of it that are under Russian control a land of milk and honey - or at least not a hell hole with people desperate to cross the border into Free Ukraine.
In a decade of occupation, they made the bits they do occupy a hellhole.
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
Their aim is to make sure that an independent Ukraine isn't successful. That doesn't preclude trying to make those parts of it that are under Russian control a land of milk and honey - or at least not a hell hole with people desperate to cross the border into Free Ukraine.
In a decade of occupation, they made the bits they do occupy a hellhole.
So I understand. And perhaps that is still what they'll be in peacetime - I don't pretend to understand the mindset. But I would think it makes more sense to do a PR excericise by heavily investing in the place.
A cartoonist so good that he needs to label his characters .
Is Punch coming back?
(Or is this a USA cartoon where they would need to label anything from outside the 48 States? )
Who on earth does that caricature look like ? It certainly isn't Zelensky.
It looks a bit more like Ralph Fiennes.
I thought more a young Sir Anthony Sher.
Zack Polanski I thought, green duds helping no doubt.
Minefield though discussing (and possibly drawing) caricatures involving Jewish people. I’d say that one ‘looks’ very Jewish, more so than Zelensky does in fact.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
Their aim is to make sure that an independent Ukraine isn't successful. That doesn't preclude trying to make those parts of it that are under Russian control a land of milk and honey - or at least not a hell hole with people desperate to cross the border into Free Ukraine.
While in Finland I saw part of a TV programme about Karelia, which was the price Finland had to pay in WWII, handing it to Russia to end the Winter War. Absolutely nothing has done with it since, and people there are now living in appalling conditions.
A cartoonist so good that he needs to label his characters .
Is Punch coming back?
(Or is this a USA cartoon where they would need to label anything from outside the 48 States? )
Who on earth does that caricature look like ? It certainly isn't Zelensky.
It looks a bit more like Ralph Fiennes.
I thought more a young Sir Anthony Sher.
Zack Polanski I thought, green duds helping no doubt.
Minefield though discussing (and possibly drawing) caricatures involving Jewish people. I’d say that one ‘looks’ very Jewish, more so than Zelensky does in fact.
Yes. Odd that a sympathetic cartoonist goes this way, when Zelensky doesn't really have that look.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
Their aim is to make sure that an independent Ukraine isn't successful. That doesn't preclude trying to make those parts of it that are under Russian control a land of milk and honey - or at least not a hell hole with people desperate to cross the border into Free Ukraine.
While in Finland I saw part of a TV programme about Karelia, which was the price Finland had to pay in WWII, handing it to Russia to end the Winter War. Absolutely nothing has done with it since, and people there are now living in appalling conditions.
Yes, that's another highly possible option.
Either way, at least giving it to Russia we are not on the hook for our share of the rebuilding.
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.
Indeed.
Its revealing that the Putinists have switched to spouting 'Russia can fight forever'.
If you call driving quadbikes into minefields as 'fighting'.
Meanwhile the evidence on the ground is that they are pretty much out of land-war equipment, and the wider economy is teetering on the edge of collapse under Western sanctions and Ukranian ‘kinetic sanctions’ on O&G facilities.
The latest reporting is that parts of the Far East are now struggling to get petrol stations supplied, with fuel trains diverted towards the war effort. Russia is a big place, and relies heavily on train logistics.
I quite like the references to the "Russian Branch of Just Stop Oil."
Shame we can’t send the unwashed Jacinda and Henry Double-Barreleds to help out with some useful stopping of oil!
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
Does that answer?
Yes, thank you. A bigger list than I thought. It’s a pity the thoughtless media seems so much more prevalent, though.
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
Does that answer?
So virtually all your media is relentlessly centrist/left
And you think that gives you a grasp of the world? It’s fecking ludicrous
You might as well just have a gay Swissnick with Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell then get all your views from the subsequent pillow talk
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
Does that answer?
So virtually all your media is relentlessly centrist/left
And you think that gives you a grasp of the world? It’s fecking ludicrous
You might as well just have a gay Swissnick with Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell then get all your views from the subsequent pillow talk
Thanks for the challenge to my spectacularly boring list. Go on, give us your list.
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
Does that answer?
So virtually all your media is relentlessly centrist/left
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
Does that answer?
Yes, thank you. A bigger list than I thought. It’s a pity the thoughtless media seems so much more prevalent, though.
Thanks. It hasn't made Leon happy though. I await his list with interest.
A chaotic and inflexible management structure, no discipline, no equipment, no supplies or reinforcements, just old and unreliable tanks that are sitting ducks for Ukranian fire.
A chaotic and inflexible management structure, no discipline, no equipment, no supplies or reinforcements, just old and unreliable tanks that are sitting ducks for Ukranian fire.
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
Does that answer?
Yes, thank you. A bigger list than I thought. It’s a pity the thoughtless media seems so much more prevalent, though.
Thanks. It hasn't made Leon happy though. I await his list with interest.
It's a load of alt right X accounts. Plus the Telegraph for balance.
Thanks for the challenge to my spectacularly boring list. Go on, give us your list.
The Spectator, Albanian Taxi Drivers, The Spectator, Random Rich people I definitely met but you never will, The Spectator, Twitter, The Spectator.
Völkischer Beobachter Der Angriff Der Stürmer Das Reich Illustrierter Beobachter NS-Frauen-Warte National-Zeitung Signal Krakauer Zeitung Il Popolo d’Italia La Difesa della Razza Gioventù Fascista Je Suis Partout Gringoire Rivarol Minute Présent Valeurs Actuelles Candour The Blackshirt Action Spearhead Nationalism Today Heritage and Destiny The Occidental Observer American Free Press National Vanguard National Review Shōwa Nichinichi Shimbun Kokumin Shimbun Rafu Shimpo Seiyūsha journals Shishi-oriented publications Hsin-Min Pao Blue Shirt Society Bulletins China Critic Die Bauernschaft Nation Europa Zuerst! Junge Freiheit Compact Deutsche Stimme Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes Éléments Krisis (in early Nouvelle Droite mode) Politica Hermética Interregnum The Rockwell Report White Power Stormer The Klansman www.politicalbetting.com
A cartoonist so good that he needs to label his characters .
Is Punch coming back?
(Or is this a USA cartoon where they would need to label anything from outside the 48 States? )
Who on earth does that caricature look like ? It certainly isn't Zelensky.
It looks a bit more like Ralph Fiennes.
I thought more a young Sir Anthony Sher.
Zack Polanski I thought, green duds helping no doubt.
Minefield though discussing (and possibly drawing) caricatures involving Jewish people. I’d say that one ‘looks’ very Jewish, more so than Zelensky does in fact.
Yes. Odd that a sympathetic cartoonist goes this way, when Zelensky doesn't really have that look.
I think it's just a really really crap cartoonist
You know who's really good at cartoons, these days?
Thanks for the challenge to my spectacularly boring list. Go on, give us your list.
The Spectator, Albanian Taxi Drivers, The Spectator, Random Rich people I definitely met but you never will, The Spectator, Twitter, The Spectator.
X is interesting. Unfiltered, it's a stream of hate and gibberish. Take the time to blank all that out and it's a very useful news feed, which is far superior on technical stuff to pretty well any mainstream news outlet..
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
Their aim is to make sure that an independent Ukraine isn't successful. That doesn't preclude trying to make those parts of it that are under Russian control a land of milk and honey - or at least not a hell hole with people desperate to cross the border into Free Ukraine.
In a decade of occupation, they made the bits they do occupy a hellhole.
So I understand. And perhaps that is still what they'll be in peacetime - I don't pretend to understand the mindset. But I would think it makes more sense to do a PR excericise by heavily investing in the place.
Read up on how the Germans treated the people of Alsace Lorraine between 1870 and WWI
In one case German officer was *praised* for beating up a cobbler. Which escalated into putting a whole area under martial law.
A cartoonist so good that he needs to label his characters .
Is Punch coming back?
(Or is this a USA cartoon where they would need to label anything from outside the 48 States? )
Who on earth does that caricature look like ? It certainly isn't Zelensky.
It looks a bit more like Ralph Fiennes.
I thought more a young Sir Anthony Sher.
Zack Polanski I thought, green duds helping no doubt.
Minefield though discussing (and possibly drawing) caricatures involving Jewish people. I’d say that one ‘looks’ very Jewish, more so than Zelensky does in fact.
Yes. Odd that a sympathetic cartoonist goes this way, when Zelensky doesn't really have that look.
I think it's just a really really crap cartoonist
You know who's really good at cartoons, these days?
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.
It isn't easy to give a lot of publicity that actually works to decent centrists who have no chance of being in power because of demography/history. That is the LD fate. However much attention they are given, no-one actually reads it.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
Please explain, with examples, the term “thoughtful media”.
Good question. The Economist; BBC radio sometimes; LBC sometimes; Times Radio sometimes; PB sometimes; Guardian and Times occasionally; New Statesman sometimes; TLS; very occasionally The Spectator; rare but more often than one would think: The Sun. Insufficient data because paywall: FT, NYT. Others worth a look on the interweb: The Rest is Politics, especially Rory; Washington Week (Jeffery Goldberg) which I find very good.
Does that answer?
So virtually all your media is relentlessly centrist/left
And whom would you describe as centrist/right ?
The original question I was asked was about 'thoughtful media'. By thoughtful I meant stuff which is shorter on assertion and longer on reasoning; stuff which was not much interested in simple solutions to complex problems or instant opinion; and stuff which had an interest in underlying principle governing the exercise of power and looked a bit beyond personality.
So I left out Stormfront, the Pyongyang Times, Conservative Home, Labour List, Morning Star, auction channels, Russia Today and a few other fascinating outlets. All of these are useful takes on the world but tend to lack that boring thoughtfulness so characteristic of PB and boring centrists.
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?
The thing is, and I need to write this carefully as I don’t mean offence to those who have sacrificed their lives and their friends and families, the Ukraine that existed in 2014 was a corrupt and crap country - I can imagine many in Crimea could look at Ukraine and look at Russia and find it hard to tell the difference.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
I somewhat agree with this. Once peace has frozen over, it is not just Russia who can regroup and reinforce. Ukraine would be united demographically without the Russian-speaking bits, and the race would be on to make it a model country - the new Poland. The race would also presumably be on on the Russian side to make 'their bits' of Ukraine shining beacons of enlightened Russian rule and pave the streets with gold. The prospect of this seems unlikely, but the people in both parts deserve these efforts.
There is no way Russia would be doing that. The whole object is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes successful, in that sense, at all.
Their aim is to make sure that an independent Ukraine isn't successful. That doesn't preclude trying to make those parts of it that are under Russian control a land of milk and honey - or at least not a hell hole with people desperate to cross the border into Free Ukraine.
In a decade of occupation, they made the bits they do occupy a hellhole.
So I understand. And perhaps that is still what they'll be in peacetime - I don't pretend to understand the mindset. But I would think it makes more sense to do a PR excericise by heavily investing in the place.
Read up on how the Germans treated the people of Alsace Lorraine between 1870 and WWI
In one case German officer was *praised* for beating up a cobbler. Which escalated into putting a whole area under martial law.
Read up on how Russia treated every one of its eastern European and Baltic conquests for the last century. Dull and economically backward repression if you're lucky. Famine; terror; slave work; gulags and purges if you're not.
A chaotic and inflexible management structure, no discipline, no equipment, no supplies or reinforcements, just old and unreliable tanks that are sitting ducks for Ukranian fire.
Unfortunately, quantity has a quality all of its own, and the West is still failing to provide the quantity of munitions that would allow much more capable Ukrainian soldiers to turn the tide on the quantity that Russia can throw at them.
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.
I don't think the Lib Dems will be worried as they don't operate in the same way as Labour and the Tories. It's way out from the next election and their polling numbers are holding up well. Third parties rarely make a splash in the Commons because the system isn't designed for it. They've got loads of Select Committee spots which provide great opportunities to generate local headlines and talking points. They don't want the media constantly interrogating them as its not going to result in anything useful. In the meantime Ed Davey can generate the odd opportunistic headlines for things he's staked a position on like Carers and Trump. Having so many MPs means they can send swarms of them out to campaign for any local or national by-elections which is how they make gains and generate headlines.
That's true, but the price is lack of appeal to serious politicians - it's obvious that some on the left haven't ruled out defecting to party, but I can't think of anyone noticeable on the left or right who has flirted with the LibDems. They don't seem to be projecting a serious alternative Government image - more a convenient home for local protest votes. Arguably that's the best prospect for a party in third place, but it's unnecessarily unambitious in the current state of affairs.
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.
He was banned.
He is not currently banned and can comment if he wishes. He may be like @isam, who forgot his password for some years.
Comments
Terence Stamp, RIP.
Reform is different. I think it's a certainty that by about 2027 year end Reform will get proper detailed demands to say where they stand on difficult stuff from thoughtful media. Reform of course have the advantage that the political skill of dealing with this evasively is well developed and they will be working on technique. Blame Tory and Labour history for this.
Oddly on PB there are no contributors who both support Reform and are able to give a coherent account of how they will want to govern on the big spending stuff. They just pivot to migration. (I am against Reform and believe they will be high spend social democrat closed border dirigiste nationalists).
No, I didn't think it did.
Europe is no longer an extension of American interests. These are now Canada, Greenland and a Single State Israel. Taiwan? No.
Thatcher's Falkland's success gave a luster to foreign conflict that has really only now, over 40 years on, rusted over and gone completely. We still talk of Starmer getting 'his Falklands moment', but the idea seems like a quaint fantasy to me.
I didn’t really want to leave the EU, I just wanted Lab or Tory to listen to what millions of us were saying about immigration. But they wouldn’t listen, so we had to leave. Even then they increased it!
That is Farage's problem.
Its easy to identify problems, especially when you allow other people to identify the problems by seeing them on social media.
But government requires policies to solve those problems.
Labour are finding out now that government is different and harder than opposition.
It would be even more so for Farage and his rabble of mis-contents.
As I see it there are also long-term risks from European political instability, which has been navigated so far by solid political support 'in principle' for Ukraine, but without enough practical support to silence Russia or marginalise the USA, and with the hard "not getting involved ourselves" line. Capability to put more than a token or trigger force on the ground does not realistically exist.
Poland won't do it imo, because like much of the rest (see the recent Presidential Election) they are walking a tightrope wrt the far, or Maga / Trump inspired, right. A "Nato Autremont" structure is possible, but I don't see Ukraine relying on that.
In the long-term Ukraine the only thing that Ukraine can GUARANTEE is self-reliance, and even that could be in question if Putin influences elections, as he has been able to do in measure elsewhere. So the target for Ukraine is a sufficiently strong armed forces etc to be able to cow Russia against invasion - elements of an "Israel" model.
And it may be a good idea for Europe to aim to put Ukraine on that trajectory, as that would over years take some pressure off their own politics wrt far right parties of various stripes. But that latter would just be a pressure valve, and there would be another pivot to a different populist grievance.
I can see an advantageous medium term position for Ukraine if both Trump and Putin popped their clogs; agency would transfer.
5am Russian drone strike on an apartment building in Kharkiv. At least three now known to be dead, including a child.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1957277137129427083
That said it is up to Poland to step up and lead any response backed up the countries to its west.
I'm coming to share a loathing for autocorrect.
It’s possible that Ukraine “needed” this war to become something else, something good. To stop being totally corrupt, to crave democracy and freedom. To become a fully modern European state and not just another ex Soviet slug.
If Ukraine gets a semblance of peace, however it happens, then they have the opportunity to become a dynamic country, industrialised through war and innovative. Natural resources which will benefit them, regardless of Trump trying to nick what he can.
Every child growing up in Ukraine will want freedom and democracy and will stamp on future Orbans and Ficos as they know how close they came to being under terrible rule.
A lot of lives have been lost but many countries become their best version when they have a point in history that made them identifiably “them”. So if this war ends, I think eventually the people of Crimea will look at Ukraine and wish they were part of it but not in 2014.
Its revealing that the Putinists have switched to spouting 'Russia can fight forever'.
If you call driving quadbikes into minefields as 'fighting'.
If Reform and the Tories come to an 'arrangenent' then the LD seats (Inverness aside) down the defence to Chelmsford would probably drop on an 'otherwise everything the same' basis, so 18 to 20 seats, but such an arrangement is unlikely. The Tories will be relying on a blue wall recovery and a slip in LD vote efficiency/tactical unwind which might bring something around the same seats into play.
All depends of course on where they both sit going into a campaign. The emergence of YP isnt going to help the LDs with the younger voters or with carving out a position left of centre that attracts attention (crowded field), but conversely the continued fascination with fag ash Farage isnt going to help the Tories.
I cant see the LDs hanging on to 72 seats without increasing national vote share and I cant see them increasing national vote share next time but I also don't see them going below 50 seats as it stands and probably not below 60 unless they start polling at the under 12% level regularly.
Unless and until the Lib Dems can repeat the efficiency of 2024, it should be considered an outlier imo
Mind you, Britain moved its own population into it's areas of interest in the past, so it's not just a Russian thing.
Last GE was a low turnout election except notably in LD gains where the turnout was generally well above the national average.
I think that there is positivity here in Ukraine at the moment despite the war, which has obviously been a defining moment in the lives of millions of Ukranians. I agree that after the war the country will look even more to the West than before, with a huge opportunity in front of them to develop economically as a nation. As well as the natural resources they also now have an astonishing defence industry, from which every Western nation should be learning.
As has been said many times, military procurement in times of war looks very different to that in times of peace, and Europe needs to be arming itself for a restoration of the Cold War, which means having weapons in quantity over quality. Oh, and ammunition, loads and loads of ammunition.
Is Punch coming back?
(Or is this a USA cartoon where they would need to label anything from outside the 48 States? )
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=labour
The latest reporting is that parts of the Far East are now struggling to get petrol stations supplied, with fuel trains diverted towards the war effort. Russia is a big place, and relies heavily on train logistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
When it becomes more profitable to start milking your audience, remembering that they are often the product not the customer.
Farage could well resign in that scenario, especially as the Tories would replace a defeated Badenoch/Stride with an even more rightwing leader like Jenrick more appealing to Reform voters
AI? No it’s not. Russian media is circulating footage of Russians assaulting Ukrainian positions in Zaporizhzhia while carrying an American flag.
https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1957356136593514782
It certainly isn't Zelensky.
It looks a bit more like Ralph Fiennes.
Not only are there millions of Ukranians displaced around the world, there’s also possibly several hundred thousand that have been kidnapped by Russia. Just the process of registering everyone is going to take months, and require a lot of international observation.
But yes, the country needs to decaide if they look West or if they look East. I know what I think from my time here, but I have seen only a snapshot of the country. All we can do is observe as they make their decision, and ensure the process is as fair as possible.
But if they wish to remain an independent nation, which seems to be the case, then they have little option, both economically and militarily, but to ally with the west.
Any alliance with Russia is necessarily subservient, and won't provide anything economically.
And on the other side, it is very much in Europe's interest to ally with Ukraine.
Does that answer?
Minefield though discussing (and possibly drawing) caricatures involving Jewish people. I’d say that one ‘looks’ very Jewish, more so than Zelensky does in fact.
Either way, at least giving it to Russia we are not on the hook for our share of the rebuilding.
And you think that gives you a grasp of the world? It’s fecking ludicrous
You might as well just have a gay Swissnick with Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell then get all your views from the subsequent pillow talk
I live about three hundred yards from the High Street
https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/2095499/marlborough-wiltshire-uks-best-high-street
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1956838494619234351?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
It’s as bad as you think it would be.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1957352359639531793.html
A chaotic and inflexible management structure, no discipline, no equipment, no supplies or reinforcements, just old and unreliable tanks that are sitting ducks for Ukranian fire.
Der Angriff
Der Stürmer
Das Reich
Illustrierter Beobachter
NS-Frauen-Warte
National-Zeitung
Signal
Krakauer Zeitung
Il Popolo d’Italia
La Difesa della Razza
Gioventù Fascista
Je Suis Partout
Gringoire
Rivarol
Minute
Présent
Valeurs Actuelles
Candour
The Blackshirt
Action
Spearhead
Nationalism Today
Heritage and Destiny
The Occidental Observer
American Free Press
National Vanguard
National Review
Shōwa Nichinichi Shimbun
Kokumin Shimbun
Rafu Shimpo
Seiyūsha journals
Shishi-oriented publications
Hsin-Min Pao
Blue Shirt Society Bulletins
China Critic
Die Bauernschaft
Nation Europa
Zuerst!
Junge Freiheit
Compact
Deutsche Stimme
Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes
Éléments
Krisis (in early Nouvelle Droite mode)
Politica Hermética
Interregnum
The Rockwell Report
White Power
Stormer
The Klansman
www.politicalbetting.com
You know who's really good at cartoons, these days?
Unfiltered, it's a stream of hate and gibberish. Take the time to blank all that out and it's a very useful news feed, which is far superior on technical stuff to pretty well any mainstream news outlet..
In one case German officer was *praised* for beating up a cobbler. Which escalated into putting a whole area under martial law.
So I left out Stormfront, the Pyongyang Times, Conservative Home, Labour List, Morning Star, auction channels, Russia Today and a few other fascinating outlets. All of these are useful takes on the world but tend to lack that boring thoughtfulness so characteristic of PB and boring centrists.
Dull and economically backward repression if you're lucky. Famine; terror; slave work; gulags and purges if you're not.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/williamglenn
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1957375086534500551