'Kemi Badenoch must seize one-nation opportunity Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.' https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
Off topic, but more important than any subject discussed recently: Judging by this Wkipedia article, PEPFAR is damaged, but may be recovering:
Given globalization, which is not going away, however much some may wish so, it is in our interest to control infectious diseases wherever they begin.
Unfortunately, a sensible person has to be skeptical about Wikipedia in recent years, and Lancet for longer.
(For some time I have been fascinated by the ignorance about PEPFAR in Western populations -- and the unwilingness to give it signficant coverage by most news organizations -- definitely including the BBC.)
By and large the media doesn't do good news stories, so when something is done that works it sinks without a trace unless people have personal experience of it.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.
We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.
Not everyone is as mad as him.
I don't believe they do.
The public support for the ICE cop who blew the mom away, even after they have viewed compelling evidence that it was unlawful, is around 50% on polls I have seen.
And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
Midterm elections are organised by state not federal governments.
Trump's 55% disapprove, 42% approve rating is not that great either
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.
We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.
Not everyone is as mad as him.
I don't believe they do.
The public support for the ICE cop who blew the mom away, even after they have viewed compelling evidence that it was unlawful, is around 50% on polls I have seen.
And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
Public support for the ICE cop is not around 50%
Quinnipiac University Poll: 53% of registered voters said the shooting was not justified, while 35% said it was justified. CNN/SSRS Poll: 56% of U.S. adults labeled the use of force as "inappropriate," compared to 26% who called it "appropriate". Yahoo News/YouGov Poll: 53% stated the agent was not justified in shooting Good, while 28% believed it was justified.
Perhaps I should have stated only 50% believe the shooting was unlawful.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.
We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.
Not everyone is as mad as him.
I don't believe they do.
The public support for the ICE cop who blew the mom away, even after they have viewed compelling evidence that it was unlawful, is around 50% on polls I have seen.
And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
Starmer is in a multiparty politics, while Trump is in a 2-party system, which makes a difference.
Several hundred US 'Arctic' troops have been put on standby in Alaska for potential deployment to 'Minnesota'
Senior military officials today denied they were in fact readying for deployment in Greenland...
Assuming they go to the US base, where they have every right to be, will anybody notice?
So, after the capture of Maduro we had all these claims from Trump that he was now running Venezuela (which he isn't).
Perhaps what will happen next is that some new troops will be sent to the US base. They will sally out towards the ice sheet and plant some US flags in the desolate emptiness. Trump will post photos of these flags to social media, declare Greenland annexed, appoint a Governor, and then move on to the next mad distraction to the Epstein Files.
Forgetting all Trump's other odious qualities but if nothing else is there a bigger whining man-child baby in world leadership?
No there is not, and this is the weirdest thing about the whole Trump Era (2015-present).
Why is this whining man-child baby behaviour not a huge turnoff for the vast majority of voters?
Even if you were in favour of the MAGA worldview in general, why would you see this pathetic self-pitying crybaby as your best option for leader?
You'd have to really really hate the alternative option. I'm fortunate I don't have that in me, but whether someone thinks the alternative deserves that hate or not, neither is a good sign of the state of US politics.
That said, a lot of people love how crude and rude he is, because he targets people they dislike (like, apparently, European allies). But the vanity is so vulgar.
'Kemi Badenoch must seize one-nation opportunity Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.' https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
You would have thought by now that Parris would have learnt to stop using words like nutters to describe people.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
They don't really have a choice, they will say yes.
They have a choice. The order would be clearly illegal, as has been set out ad nauseam.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
International politics is hard, especially with superpowers looking to increasingly throw their weight around, but surely no country not an authoritarian state could agree to set up a private UN for Donald Trump on the basis that they maybe might amend the draft charter terms later?
Tony Blair is playing a key role behind the scenes along with Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, sources say. There is potential for the terms of the charter to be adapted following feedback on the initial draft, some of the people say. https://nitter.poast.org/alexwickham/status/2013273920518971397#m
Where is this $1billion per seat actually going to?
Several hundred US 'Arctic' troops have been put on standby in Alaska for potential deployment to 'Minnesota'
Senior military officials today denied they were in fact readying for deployment in Greenland...
I do actually believe that. If Trump is sending troops to Minnesota to bash heads then it's prudent to ensure they, as far as possible, don't have anything much to do with the people who's heads they're going to bash.
Greenland would be special forces, at least initially. Seize control of the government, airport, communications, etc.
The BBC reports: "The US can do more for Greenlanders' security and prosperity than Denmark can, retired army general Jack D, Ripper tells Fox News. He also says a potential US acquisition of Greenland is "in Nato's interest", as the US "can do more" for regional security than Denmark can. Ripper, who served as vice chief of staff for the US Army from 1999 to 2003, says a plan needs to be formed to the benefit of all mankind. "It is essential that the USA acquires Greenland in order to protect the purity of our precious bodily fluids" he says."
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.
We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.
Not everyone is as mad as him.
I don't believe they do.
The public support for the ICE cop who blew the mom away, even after they have viewed compelling evidence that it was unlawful, is around 50% on polls I have seen.
And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
Midterm elections are organised by state not federal governments.
Trump's 55% disapprove, 42% approve rating is not that great either
Trump has already stated he is collecting the voting machines before the count. Do you believe the states will be able to stop him?
Yes, state Governors control their own National Guards and the President needs a Congressional declaration of a state of emergency or war to deploy the Federal National Guard
International politics is hard, especially with superpowers looking to increasingly throw their weight around, but surely no country not an authoritarian state could agree to set up a private UN for Donald Trump on the basis that they maybe might amend the draft charter terms later?
Tony Blair is playing a key role behind the scenes along with Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, sources say. There is potential for the terms of the charter to be adapted following feedback on the initial draft, some of the people say. https://nitter.poast.org/alexwickham/status/2013273920518971397#m
Where is this $1billion per seat actually going to?
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
They don't really have a choice, they will say yes.
They have a choice. The order would be clearly illegal, as has been set out ad nauseam.
Trouble is all the JAGs (law officers in military) have been replaced by Trump people.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
International politics is hard, especially with superpowers looking to increasingly throw their weight around, but surely no country not an authoritarian state could agree to set up a private UN for Donald Trump on the basis that they maybe might amend the draft charter terms later?
Tony Blair is playing a key role behind the scenes along with Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, sources say. There is potential for the terms of the charter to be adapted following feedback on the initial draft, some of the people say. https://nitter.poast.org/alexwickham/status/2013273920518971397#m
Where is this $1billion per seat actually going to?
Why. Donald Trump of course.
I wondered whether there was some promise of sharing going on.
The BBC reports: "The US can do more for Greenlanders' security and prosperity than Denmark can, retired army general Jack D, Ripper tells Fox News. He also says a potential US acquisition of Greenland is "in Nato's interest", as the US "can do more" for regional security than Denmark can. Ripper, who served as vice chief of staff for the US Army from 1999 to 2003, says a plan needs to be formed to the benefit of all mankind. "It is essential that the USA acquires Greenland in order to protect the purity of our precious bodily fluids" he says."
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
Given Trump would be impeached by Congress the very next day and given 3/4 of US voters oppose invading Greenland probably convicted and removed from office it is all hypothetical anyway/
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
International politics is hard, especially with superpowers looking to increasingly throw their weight around, but surely no country not an authoritarian state could agree to set up a private UN for Donald Trump on the basis that they maybe might amend the draft charter terms later?
Tony Blair is playing a key role behind the scenes along with Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, sources say. There is potential for the terms of the charter to be adapted following feedback on the initial draft, some of the people say. https://nitter.poast.org/alexwickham/status/2013273920518971397#m
Where is this $1billion per seat actually going to?
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.
We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.
Not everyone is as mad as him.
I don't believe they do.
The public support for the ICE cop who blew the mom away, even after they have viewed compelling evidence that it was unlawful, is around 50% on polls I have seen.
And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
Midterm elections are organised by state not federal governments.
Trump's 55% disapprove, 42% approve rating is not that great either
Trump has already stated he is collecting the voting machines before the count. Do you believe the states will be able to stop him?
Yes, state Governors control their own National Guards and the President needs a Congressional declaration of a state of emergency or war to deploy the Federal National Guard
Unless I am very much mistaken that is civil war. Trump isn't going to trouble Congress.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
They will do as they're told.
We can forget mass strikes by the military.
They may. But should there be another Democratic administration, officers will be subject to prosecution, and rightly so.
I remember visiting Newark for the by-election at which Jenrick was elected and the funny thing is it seems like it was about 5 years ago, but it was in fact in 2014. A lot of people thought the UKIP candidate Roger Helmer might win.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
It's clear. Wouldn't stop enough of them.
Lots of officials swore oaths to the constitution, and plenty have resigned rather than follow some instructions. Others filled their places.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
It's clear. Wouldn't stop enough of them.
I don't suppose it would. But I look forward to every officer being cashiered. And the generals tried and convicted.
They have already been put on notice by several Senators.
Trump tells NBC News he’ll "100%" hit European nations with fresh tariffs if a Greenland deal is not reached.
I feel like he's missed the part where Europe has already said they'll accept the Tariffs (with some varying level of retaliation) if Trump goes ahead.
It's not that Europe is bluffing. It's that they value territorial integrity far, far more than the cost of exports to the US.
It's like he still thinks his threat is some great trump card (pun intended) that even comes close to forcing Europe to accede to his demand.
Europe is not without tools to resist Donald Trump’s drive for Greenland. It could nobble American tech companies, review banking licences or sell Treasuries; the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument” could be invoked, allowing a range of other retaliations. But calibrating the response to such a mercurial and yet still-mighty president involves painful choices—and getting dozens of countries to agree makes it harder still.
The story is set out in detail here; not sure how reliable this source is?
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
The BBC reports: "The US can do more for Greenlanders' security and prosperity than Denmark can, retired army general Jack D, Ripper tells Fox News. He also says a potential US acquisition of Greenland is "in Nato's interest", as the US "can do more" for regional security than Denmark can. Ripper, who served as vice chief of staff for the US Army from 1999 to 2003, says a plan needs to be formed to the benefit of all mankind. "It is essential that the USA acquires Greenland in order to protect the purity of our precious bodily fluids" he says."
Jack D Ripper? Is that a joke?
It is a joke. It is a reference to the character of the same name in the film "Dr Strangelove". In the movie the character goes insane and launches a bombing run on Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSofqNSuVy8&t=1s
'Kemi Badenoch must seize one-nation opportunity Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.' https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
It’s the best strategy for the Tories, and the worst for the LibDems, if presenting the risk that instead of the Tories splitting the right wing vote and letting the LDs through, they might instead split the centre vote and be letting Reform through. It all depends on the relative poll ratings, as you often point out. However, even a cursory glance at ConHome, full of frothing Tory members for whom anyone in their own party who is left of Genghis Khan is a miserable wet LibDem, shows how difficult it is going to be for the Tory party to return to moderate politics, even shorn of a few of its more extreme MPs.
The BBC reports: "The US can do more for Greenlanders' security and prosperity than Denmark can, retired army general Jack D, Ripper tells Fox News. He also says a potential US acquisition of Greenland is "in Nato's interest", as the US "can do more" for regional security than Denmark can. Ripper, who served as vice chief of staff for the US Army from 1999 to 2003, says a plan needs to be formed to the benefit of all mankind. "It is essential that the USA acquires Greenland in order to protect the purity of our precious bodily fluids" he says."
Jack D Ripper? Is that a joke?
It's the Sterling truth.
(I have a strange love for puns)
Incidentally, a bit of appropriate trivia:
While shooting aerial footage over Greenland, the second unit camera crew accidentally filmed a secret U.S. military base. Their plane was forced down, and the crew was suspected of being Soviet spies.
There were many more US bases back then, of course.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.
Nobody is going to fire any shots.
That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.
Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.
Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.
He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.
As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.
Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
Every officer swears an authority to uphold the constitution.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal. It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
Given Trump would be impeached by Congress the very next day and given 3/4 of US voters oppose invading Greenland probably convicted and removed from office it is all hypothetical anyway/
It would also mean the US was at war with Denmark
That's what one might have expected to happen in a "normal" world. I'm not sure anyone could have a high degree of confidence that that's how it would play out in this current state of Trump-dominated reality.
"Kate Fox witnessed something extraordinary during the 2011 London riots: looters forming an orderly queue to squeeze through a smashed shop window, deterring queue-jumpers with disapproving frowns and raised eyebrows."
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
Several hundred US 'Arctic' troops have been put on standby in Alaska for potential deployment to 'Minnesota'
Senior military officials today denied they were in fact readying for deployment in Greenland...
I do actually believe that. If Trump is sending troops to Minnesota to bash heads then it's prudent to ensure they, as far as possible, don't have anything much to do with the people who's heads they're going to bash.
Greenland would be special forces, at least initially. Seize control of the government, airport, communications, etc.
Nuuk is a town of 20,000 people.
Shell has more petrol stations than Greenland has people.
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
Here are the written documents Trump says don't exist
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) aircraft will soon arrive at Pituffik Space Base, Greenland. Along with aircraft operating from bases in the continental United States and Canada, they will support various long-planned NORAD activities, building on the enduring defense cooperation between the United States and Canada, as well as the Kingdom of Denmark.
This activity has been coordinated with the Kingdom of Denmark, and all supporting forces operate with the requisite diplomatic clearances. The Government of Greenland is also informed of planned activities.
NORAD routinely conducts sustained, dispersed operations in the defense of North America, through one or all three NORAD regions (Alaska, Canada, and the continental U.S.).
Several hundred US 'Arctic' troops have been put on standby in Alaska for potential deployment to 'Minnesota'
Senior military officials today denied they were in fact readying for deployment in Greenland...
I do actually believe that. If Trump is sending troops to Minnesota to bash heads then it's prudent to ensure they, as far as possible, don't have anything much to do with the people who's heads they're going to bash.
Greenland would be special forces, at least initially. Seize control of the government, airport, communications, etc.
Nuuk is a town of 20,000 people.
Shell has more petrol stations than Greenland has people.
The Norwegian government and a majority of parliament decided that they would purchase South Korea's K239 long-range missile system and 500km range ballistic missiles instead of the European and Israeli PULS and MARS-3. A Norwegian Conservative politician says this is one of the most powerful weapons in Norwegian history and a crucial investment in modern defense. According to the recommendations of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, the approval of the Norwegian Cabinet, and my sources at a Norwegian defense consulting firm, the contract is worth $1.88 billion and will involve the purchase of 15 to 23 launchers. A contract is expected to be signed soon. This would make Estonia the first official buyer of the CTM-MR medium-range tactical missile, and Norway is the first official buyer of the CTM-X ballistic missile... https://x.com/mason_8718/status/2013267234257514933
'Kemi Badenoch must seize one-nation opportunity Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.' https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
You would have thought by now that Parris would have learnt to stop using words like nutters to describe people.
You'd have thought by now that the Times wouldn't he paying him to churn out this drivel. If someone loves the Liberal Democrats so much, fuck off and join them. I don't get the odd practise by some of detesting a party's core values and those of its voters, but insisting on remaining part of it like a stubborn fungal nail infection.
Lib Dems, as much as I can't muster much joy at their existence, are at least putting a prospectus forward that they like, their activists like, and their voters like. Centrist Tories aren't. They want the Union Jack waving masses to fund, campaign, and vote them into office, merely so they can enact laws that make Britain ever more a social democratic basket case. Find a party that you actually like for the love of God.
'Kemi Badenoch must seize one-nation opportunity Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.' https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
It’s the best strategy for the Tories, and the worst for the LibDems, if presenting the risk that instead of the Tories splitting the right wing vote and letting the LDs through, they might instead split the centre vote and be letting Reform through. It all depends on the relative poll ratings, as you often point out. However, even a cursory glance at ConHome, full of frothing Tory members for whom anyone in their own party who is left of Genghis Khan is a miserable wet LibDem, shows how difficult it is going to be for the Tory party to return to moderate politics, even shorn of a few of its more extreme MPs.
To be honest the Tories aren't going to retake many LD seats even if Hezza or Clarke or Cameron came back to lead them. However if they could squeeze some LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold v Reform that could be crucial to Tory MPs holding their seats
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
The "logic" of the Trump administration is that any state that cannot defend some or all of its territory, and instead sits under America's umbrella, either should become US territory, or could do so when the US desires it to. That position must apply to literally dozens of countries. Any country relying on the US for defence will potentially face the same claims being made on their territory, like Denmark and Greenland, or Canada. We should not allow this under any circumstances.
"Kate Fox witnessed something extraordinary during the 2011 London riots: looters forming an orderly queue to squeeze through a smashed shop window, deterring queue-jumpers with disapproving frowns and raised eyebrows."
Except given ReformUK now lead UK polls I wouldn't say the British are responding that politely to the threat of militant Islam SeanT warns about in that article
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
Not one word about Greenland in the US national security strategy paper.
Last year when Trump played chicken with Europe over tariffs it was at a time when the US was still providing military aid to Ukraine. Now that has stopped (as the Don so proudly tells us). Less reason for the EU to surrender this time.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
Although I note Peel says "this doesn't sound like New Order"
"Do ye ken John Peel with his coat so gay? Do ye ken John Peel at the break of day? Do ye ken John Peel when he's far, far away With his hounds and his horn in the morning
Twas the sound of his horn brought me from my bed And the cry of his hounds has me oftimes led For Peel's view holloa would wake the dead Or a fox from his lair in the morning
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
Not one word about Greenland in the US national security strategy paper.
Last year when Trump played chicken with Europe over tariffs it was at a time when the US was still providing military aid to Ukraine. Now that has stopped (as the Don so proudly tells us). Less reason for the EU to surrender this time.
The fact that Greenland is not mentioned in a security strategy prepared at great length only two months ago shows that this administration is now just driven by Trump's mood or whim of the day literally by the hour.
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
The "logic" of the Trump administration is that any state that cannot defend some or all of its territory, and instead sits under America's umbrella, either should become US territory, or could do so when the US desires it to. That position must apply to literally dozens of countries. Any country relying on the US for defence will potentially face the same claims being made on their territory, like Denmark and Greenland, or Canada. We should not allow this under any circumstances.
Is there absolutely no constituency for a younger Republican politician to make some political hay out of this and seize the future of their party by repudiating Trump’s views?
Not one word about Greenland in the US national security strategy paper.
Last year when Trump played chicken with Europe over tariffs it was at a time when the US was still providing military aid to Ukraine. Now that has stopped (as the Don so proudly tells us). Less reason for the EU to surrender this time.
There's no reason to surrender. If Trump gets Greenland he really will try to get Canada, and that will be an even bigger problem for us all.
Trump is using the Gaza conflict - that remains unsettled - to set up a rival to the UN with its own charter, peace making role and funding. The text shows only Chairman Trump will determine membership - unlucky China - and the chairman will determine how votes are held.
It's also worth pointing out the old political maxim.
It's not what you say that counts but to whom you are saying it. . Put another way, why is someone saying something and who is their audience?
It doesn't matter if it's Trump, Badenoch, Putin, Xi, Farage or Starmer. All rarely talk to their outright opponents - they talk far more to their supporters who, as we were reminded constantly in the 2019-24 Parliament by supporters of the various Governments we endured, the only people who matter.
The process is affirmatory - the leader you support says the things you want to hear in the way you want to hear them. That's the management of the media and the message. It's not about argument or debate, it's about confirmation.
Thus do we have efforts like the Liz Truss podcast, GB News and doubtless other offerings from other viewpoints where A, B, C and D all sit in a studio and agree with each other for an hour repeating ad infinitum and ad nauseam the same arguments, the same views, the same critiques without any kind of counter weight. Goebbels would be proud - it's propaganda par excellence.
The echo chambers of social media play the same game - a quest for the truth it is not, an affirmation of whatever version of the truth the poster wishes to put forward is what matters. The "evidence" - distorted and doctored by AI, appears to validate the opinion but of course it would - how could it not?
Not one word about Greenland in the US national security strategy paper.
Last year when Trump played chicken with Europe over tariffs it was at a time when the US was still providing military aid to Ukraine. Now that has stopped (as the Don so proudly tells us). Less reason for the EU to surrender this time.
The fact that Greenland is not mentioned in a security strategy prepared at great length only two months ago shows that this administration is now just driven by Trump's mood or whim of the day literally by the hour.
Oh America. What have you done?
They had 4 years to see what it was like and another 4 years to think about whether they wanted to do it again but this time on steroids, and still went for it.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
Except the evidence for what an unbridled horror he would be if the keys to the WH were to be returned to him was there for anybody with a braincell or a shred of decency to see for years beforehand. Good people my arse.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
Perhaps - I'm left with some thoughts. One is the death of the duopoly may be exaggerated - the truth is they won over 500 seats on 58% of the vote in 2024. Thet may be polling 40% between them now but that could change.
There is also the symbiotic nature of that relationship - Labour and the Conservatives need each other and I'd argue Starmer wouldn't be unhappy if the Conservatives revived as that would likely bring some of his supporters back against the "old enemy".
Reform and Green pose a combined existential threat to the duopoly but could become their own duopoly if you think 21st century politics is going to move towards themes of immigration and the environment as being central issues - I'm not convinced.
'Kemi Badenoch must seize one-nation opportunity Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.' https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
It’s the best strategy for the Tories, and the worst for the LibDems, if presenting the risk that instead of the Tories splitting the right wing vote and letting the LDs through, they might instead split the centre vote and be letting Reform through. It all depends on the relative poll ratings, as you often point out. However, even a cursory glance at ConHome, full of frothing Tory members for whom anyone in their own party who is left of Genghis Khan is a miserable wet LibDem, shows how difficult it is going to be for the Tory party to return to moderate politics, even shorn of a few of its more extreme MPs.
To be honest the Tories aren't going to retake many LD seats even if Hezza or Clarke or Cameron came back to lead them. However if they could squeeze some LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold v Reform that could be crucial to Tory MPs holding their seats
The modelling by that young guy who runs the election maps website - which is clearly based on data or assumptions that vary significantly from UNS, but remain a completely unexplained black box on the website, indicate that most of the LibDem held seats would currently be won with larger majorities than they got last time. Presumably some combination of the marginal favourable swing from Con to LD since the last election, plus an incumbency bonus, plus it becomes easier to achieve tactical voting once you’ve demonstrated you can win (e.g that Heathener we used to have here won’t be able to claim a Labour vote in Newton Abbott as somehow tactical, like she did last time).
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
The Tories received a GB share of 24.4% of the vote at GE2024. They're best recent poll share is 22%. They last received 24% in an opinion poll in mid-April 2025. The Wikipedia graph gives them a current score of ~20% (but beware end effects with a LOESS smooth). So they have a way to go yet.
The Lib Dem GB share at GE2024 was 12.5%. Their current polling average on Wikipedia is very close to 12.5%. Given that it's the gap between the Tory and Lib Dem shares that is the clearest determinant of Lib Dem success, then if the Lib Dems had been able to attract even just a couple of percentage points of additional support, it would give them a bit of a cushion against a Tory resurgence.
Whatever it is that the Lib Dems are trying to do right now it isn't working.
I remember visiting Newark for the by-election at which Jenrick was elected and the funny thing is it seems like it was about 5 years ago, but it was in fact in 2014. A lot of people thought the UKIP candidate Roger Helmer might win.
I remember it quite well; Farage had to defend Helmer for having old fashioned views about gay marriage.
'Kemi Badenoch must seize one-nation opportunity Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.' https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
You would have thought by now that Parris would have learnt to stop using words like nutters to describe people.
You'd have thought by now that the Times wouldn't he paying him to churn out this drivel. If someone loves the Liberal Democrats so much, fuck off and join them. I don't get the odd practise by some of detesting a party's core values and those of its voters, but insisting on remaining part of it like a stubborn fungal nail infection.
Lib Dems, as much as I can't muster much joy at their existence, are at least putting a prospectus forward that they like, their activists like, and their voters like. Centrist Tories aren't. They want the Union Jack waving masses to fund, campaign, and vote them into office, merely so they can enact laws that make Britain ever more a social democratic basket case. Find a party that you actually like for the love of God.
It's clear some have finally realised, since last Thursday, the idea of a Reform Government is as anathema as a re-elected Labour Government so they are desperate to see the Conservatives recover to at the very least prevent the former and perhaps the latter,
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
I think the Lib Dems look pretty safe this Parliament. Reform will weakening but they will still deny many Tory gains while failing to gain much themselves. Labour will be back in the game too, and the generic right are still blamed for the 14 year fuck up of the last five Tory Prime Ministers. I doubt Kemi Badenoch can get to number ten, but a future Tory PM "might" be elected on her watch, which is a big step up from the dead wood on the Tory benches right now, even if they have been improved by the departure of Rosendill and Jenrick.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
The best way to read this is: "Myself and others on the fruitier side of the British right are terrified that our previous vocal support for Donald Trump is going to bite us viciously on the arse. There are skin diseases that poll better than he does in the UK."
Trump is using the Gaza conflict - that remains unsettled - to set up a rival to the UN with its own charter, peace making role and funding. The text shows only Chairman Trump will determine membership - unlucky China - and the chairman will determine how votes are held.
As a thought experiment, what would it look like if we applied the Trump approach?
I guess we’d invade Ireland, lock up all Scot Nats, and retake Cyprus?
All militarily feasible. All inconceivable.
Inconceivable presently, but considered existential necessities in the past.
If you think about Britain now, the facts that Ireland is part of another local power (the EU) and is sponsored by a dominant global power (the US), and the fact that Wales and Scotland are riven by separatism, are evidence of our decline.
I think the real question we should be asking is why Donald Trump's behaviour has suddenly become even more erratic. Is it just the adrenaline rush of his successful kidnapping of Maduro, or is there something else going on? It could be as simple as a power struggle between members of the administration or as serious as his dementia entering a new and dangerous phase which his treatment hasn't caught up with yet.
The question still seems pertinent, and the answer has serious implications.
I think we can say it's not the first as it has carried on for too long. That leaves the other two, and the second one doesn't look especially plausible right now.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
The best way to read this is: "Myself and others on the fruitier side of the British right are terrified that our previous vocal support for Donald Trump is going to bite us viciously on the arse. There are skin diseases that poll better than he does in the UK."
Is there absolutely no constituency for a younger Republican politician to make some political hay out of this and seize the future of their party by repudiating Trump’s views?
The track record of Republican politicians who make a stand against Trump is that they either get driven out of active electoral politics, or they back down and kowtow to the great leader.
This has happened quite recently with Marjorie Taylor Greene on what you would think was vulnerable political territory for Trump over the Epstein Files.
As a thought experiment, what would it look like if we applied the Trump approach?
I guess we’d invade Ireland, lock up all Scot Nats, and retake Cyprus?
All militarily feasible. All inconceivable.
Inconceivable presently, but considered existential necessities in the past.
If you think about Britain now, the facts that Ireland is part of another local power (the EU) and is sponsored by a dominant global power (the US), and the fact that Wales and Scotland are riven by separatism, are evidence of our decline.
I think the fact we are out of the EU and Wales and Scotland are riven by separatism is more a symptom of the rising nationalism across most of the world rather than something unique to the UK
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
I think the real question we should be asking is why Donald Trump's behaviour has suddenly become even more erratic. Is it just the adrenaline rush of his successful kidnapping of Maduro, or is there something else going on? It could be as simple as a power struggle between members of the administration or as serious as his dementia entering a new and dangerous phase which his treatment hasn't caught up with yet.
The question still seems pertinent, and the answer has serious implications.
I think we can say it's not the first as it has carried on for too long. That leaves the other two, and the second one doesn't look especially plausible right now.
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
Just sort of grab them.
Trump has the thought process of a rapist.
If Trump wants it he takes it. Consent is irrelevant.
As a thought experiment, what would it look like if we applied the Trump approach?
I guess we’d invade Ireland, lock up all Scot Nats, and retake Cyprus?
All militarily feasible. All inconceivable.
Inconceivable presently, but considered existential necessities in the past.
If you think about Britain now, the facts that Ireland is part of another local power (the EU) and is sponsored by a dominant global power (the US), and the fact that Wales and Scotland are riven by separatism, are evidence of our decline.
I think the fact we are out of the EU and Wales and Scotland are riven by separatism is more a symptom of the rising nationalism across most of the world rather than something unique to the UK
Yes, there's something in that, but two things can be true at once. Nationalism was rising in the 19th century too, but we didn't see it rising in Wales and Scotland (though it always existed) because Britain was doing well. These are diseases on the body politic. Diseases don't tend affect a healthy body, but they run riot with a weak one.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
That alone undercuts the whole credibility of his argument. They voted for Trump *to* pack the court.
As for the rest, it was obvious to anyone with an IQ of above room temperature that he had lost his mind five years ago.
I realise the qualification may exclude Hannan, a man so stupid he didn't realise leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market.
CourtPacking is the irregular verb thing. Again
I make wise judicial appointments You make controversial nominations He/She/It/They are packing the Court
The simple truth is that the US Supreme Court has become the third, and highest, chamber of the legislature. And so getting Your Guys on the court became *the* political battleground.
The MAGA right won the “elections” to the court, so far.
But now Europe gets to learn what is becoming increasingly clear to everybody: Trying to satiate this guy just makes him hungrier. In this way he’s just like any other authoritarian, really. Give Putin the Donbas to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next? Give Trump Greenland to shut him up, and who knows what he’ll try to take next?
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
"Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also."
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
Just sort of grab them.
Exactly so. I can't remember the PBer who said it, but the Trump administration rhetoric over Greenland is that of a rapist justifying their actions.
And we knew this was who Trump was by his own words back in 2016. It was known.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
He's right - there's absolutely nothing in Trump's past behaviour that might have indicated that he might do something like this. /s
This kind of excuse does not wash at all. If you voted for Trump, you knew exactly what kind of individual he was, and what the risks were of doing so. Character is important when it comes to nuclear weapons and the future of the free world, and no MAGA voter should get a pass for it. Irresponsible, childish people who I wouldn't trust with anything.
I think a fairer take is that the behaviour is escalating to quite an extraordinary degree. In retrospect, it's sickening that a term like "Trump Derangement Syndrome" even exists - anyone who spouted that previously looks like a complete bellend now. Any attempt to curtail this behaviour now will be just blown away. The time to stop Trump was after January 6th, should've been stamped out then.
Horrible thing to say, but if the Capitol Police had mown down those traitors en masse I don't think we'd be here today. That degree of tolerance for sedition has ultimately undermined US democracy.
I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.
However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.
The key problem is Ukraine. So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.
The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.
I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.
We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.
Not everyone is as mad as him.
I don't believe they do.
The public support for the ICE cop who blew the mom away, even after they have viewed compelling evidence that it was unlawful, is around 50% on polls I have seen.
And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
Public support for the ICE cop is not around 50%
Quinnipiac University Poll: 53% of registered voters said the shooting was not justified, while 35% said it was justified. CNN/SSRS Poll: 56% of U.S. adults labeled the use of force as "inappropriate," compared to 26% who called it "appropriate". Yahoo News/YouGov Poll: 53% stated the agent was not justified in shooting Good, while 28% believed it was justified.
Perhaps I should have stated only 50% believe the shooting was unlawful.
Currently 55% disapprove of Trump. 42% approve.
Also about 55% think the shooting was unjustified (same % as disapprove of Trump) But only about 30% think it was justified compared with the 42% who approve of Trump. The other 12% who approve of Trump are sitting on their hands on this, sucking their teeth.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
He's right - there's absolutely nothing in Trump's past behaviour that might have indicated that he might do something like this. /s
This kind of excuse does not wash at all. If you voted for Trump, you knew exactly what kind of individual he was, and what the risks were of doing so. Character is important when it comes to nuclear weapons and the future of the free world, and no MAGA voter should get a pass for it. Irresponsible, childish people who I wouldn't trust with anything.
I think a fairer take is that the behaviour is escalating to quite an extraordinary degree. In retrospect, it's sickening that a term like "Trump Derangement Syndrome" even exists - anyone who spouted that previously looks like a complete bellend now. Any attempt to curtail this behaviour now will be just blown away. The time to stop Trump was after January 6th, should've been stamped out then.
This is true and yet the mistake has been made long ago and we need the support of as many people as possible to deal with the consequences, so I guess we should refrain somewhat from damning people who come belatedly to the realisation that Trump is a clear and present danger. The twits.
There are two priorities.
One. Deal with the reality. Stand up to Trump. Do what needs to be done to secure British defence independent of the US.
Two. Avoid repeating the mistake. Absolutely nail Farage for his Russian connections. For his repetition of Russian talking points. For his Trump support and imitation.
We can see what a leader like Trump can do to a country's interests. We need to ensure that Britain's wannabe Trump is soundly defeated. Somehow. It would kinda help if the government was generally a bit less useless.
Comments
Senior military officials today denied they were in fact readying for deployment in Greenland...
Shedding rabble to Reform gives Conservative leader a chance to fill a gaping hole at the centre of British politics'
'..And we have the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps you’d forgotten them? Seventy-two — yes, 72 — MPs and absolutely no impact. No profile, no policies anyone can remember and no tough response to the tough problems government faces, led by a politician, Sir Ed Davey, who falls so far below the level of the leadership an insurgent centre party needs that it’s baffling he largely escapes criticism because (they say) he’s “a nice man”. Which indeed he is: more than nice, privately heroic, but political jelly.What luck, then, for the Conservatives! What an opportunity for Badenoch! Between leftish ninnies like Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and “right-wing” clowns like Farage and his new ex-Tory best friends yawns a huge hole at the centre of British politics. It’s where tens of millions of us sit: homeless, worried, ready — even eager — to respond to a unifying message from a sensible centre-right party.
For Badenoch it’s time, now the nutters have gone, for an olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve … all driven away by Johnson. James Cleverly and the sensible shadow chancellor Mel Stride could be her envoys to the wilderness into which moderate conservatives feel we have been cast.The metaphor of a broad church cuts both ways, and there’s a place for loyal Conservatives of the Rees-Moggian tendency and there are bullets moderates, too, must bite. Stern, even harsh control of unlawful immigration; more for defence and less for welfare; a critical review of membership of the European Convention on Human Rights; unblinking acceptance that the European Union ship has sailed and there’s no return.
There will be gulps among former Tory moderates, though fewer gulps, I think, among the electorate. Shorn of the distractions of populist fantasy, the reunification of the centre right will still be a hard ride but it should fall to Badenoch to lead the charge.She is not naturally emollient, not a born unifier, but may be surprised at how much the old broad-church Tory party wants to like her, if only she shows herself ready to be liked.'
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/kemi-badenoch-must-seize-one-nation-opportunity-rv6mqqxsx?gaa_at=eafs
‘Israel has strongly condemned the Spanish government throughout 2025’
https://share.google/aimode/78t88gcBSdVJJkrST
Why is this whining man-child baby behaviour not a huge turnoff for the vast majority of voters?
Even if you were in favour of the MAGA worldview in general, why would you see this pathetic self-pitying crybaby as your best option for leader?
Perhaps what will happen next is that some new troops will be sent to the US base. They will sally out towards the ice sheet and plant some US flags in the desolate emptiness. Trump will post photos of these flags to social media, declare Greenland annexed, appoint a Governor, and then move on to the next mad distraction to the Epstein Files.
That said, a lot of people love how crude and rude he is, because he targets people they dislike (like, apparently, European allies). But the vanity is so vulgar.
The order would be clearly illegal, as has been set out ad nauseam.
An order to invade another nation for the purpose of conquest, without Congressional authorisation, is obviously and undeniably illegal.
It would also be in breach of treaty obligations, which also have the force of law in the US.
Of course there will be soldiers willing to break their oaths and violate the law, but let's be clear about what it would be.
Norwegian military officials said the letters were an advance warning to those with assets that may need to be requisitioned."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/01/19/norwegians-told-to-prepare-for-wartime-property-seizures/
Greenland would be special forces, at least initially. Seize control of the government, airport, communications, etc.
We can forget mass strikes by the military.
(I have a strange love for puns)
It would also mean the US was at war with Denmark
But should there be another Democratic administration, officers will be subject to prosecution, and rightly so.
Lots of officials swore oaths to the constitution, and plenty have resigned rather than follow some instructions. Others filled their places.
But I look forward to every officer being cashiered. And the generals tried and convicted.
They have already been put on notice by several Senators.
It's not that Europe is bluffing. It's that they value territorial integrity far, far more than the cost of exports to the US.
It's like he still thinks his threat is some great trump card (pun intended) that even comes close to forcing Europe to accede to his demand.
https://www.newsletter.samuel-warde.com/p/europe-prepares-to-go-scorched-earth
Here's John Peel playing it for the first time on Radio One on 20th February 1983.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rNs1Ha3Evw
The outrages will continue. Just this morning, news broke that Trump has invited Putin himself to be a member of the “Board of Peace” to reconstruct the Gaza strip. It’s time for Europe to see what time it is.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/celebrate-a-king-not-a-trump-mlk-jr-day-norway-denmark-greenland-nobel?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
While shooting aerial footage over Greenland, the second unit camera crew accidentally filmed a secret U.S. military base. Their plane was forced down, and the crew was suspected of being Soviet spies.
There were many more US bases back then, of course.
"Sean Thomas
Britain’s fatal good manners
Our politeness could be our undoing" (£)
https://spectator.com/article/britains-fatal-good-manners/
Quote:
"Kate Fox witnessed something extraordinary during the 2011 London riots: looters forming an orderly queue to squeeze through a smashed shop window, deterring queue-jumpers with disapproving frowns and raised eyebrows."
Although I note Peel says "this doesn't sound like New Order"
Someone who thinks like that can construct an argument to annex just about anywhere or anything they like.
Shell has more petrol stations than Greenland has people.
https://x.com/faisalislam/status/2013242507983794280?s=20
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) aircraft will soon arrive at Pituffik Space Base, Greenland. Along with aircraft operating from bases in the continental United States and Canada, they will support various long-planned NORAD activities, building on the enduring defense cooperation between the United States and Canada, as well as the Kingdom of Denmark.
This activity has been coordinated with the Kingdom of Denmark, and all supporting forces operate with the requisite diplomatic clearances. The Government of Greenland is also informed of planned activities.
NORAD routinely conducts sustained, dispersed operations in the defense of North America, through one or all three NORAD regions (Alaska, Canada, and the continental U.S.).
https://x.com/NORADCommand/status/2013326903063781489?s=20
I don't want to have to rely on Esso.
According to the recommendations of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, the approval of the Norwegian Cabinet, and my sources at a Norwegian defense consulting firm, the contract is worth $1.88 billion and will involve the purchase of 15 to 23 launchers.
A contract is expected to be signed soon. This would make Estonia the first official buyer of the CTM-MR medium-range tactical missile, and Norway is the first official buyer of the CTM-X ballistic missile...
https://x.com/mason_8718/status/2013267234257514933
Lib Dems, as much as I can't muster much joy at their existence, are at least putting a prospectus forward that they like, their activists like, and their voters like. Centrist Tories aren't. They want the Union Jack waving masses to fund, campaign, and vote them into office, merely so they can enact laws that make Britain ever more a social democratic basket case. Find a party that you actually like for the love of God.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
Last year when Trump played chicken with Europe over tariffs it was at a time when the US was still providing military aid to Ukraine. Now that has stopped (as the Don so proudly tells us). Less reason for the EU to surrender this time.
@DanielJHannan
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd.
But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently?
We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
https://x.com/DanielJHannan/status/2013248587442930084
Do ye ken John Peel at the break of day?
Do ye ken John Peel when he's far, far away
With his hounds and his horn in the morning
Twas the sound of his horn brought me from my bed
And the cry of his hounds has me oftimes led
For Peel's view holloa would wake the dead
Or a fox from his lair in the morning
source: https://www.lyricsondemand.com/u/unknownlyrics/doyekenjohnpeellyrics.html"
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
Oh America. What have you done?
There is no logic.
https://x.com/patrickwintour/status/2013301490933260646
It's not what you say that counts but to whom you are saying it. . Put another way, why is someone saying something and who is their audience?
It doesn't matter if it's Trump, Badenoch, Putin, Xi, Farage or Starmer. All rarely talk to their outright opponents - they talk far more to their supporters who, as we were reminded constantly in the 2019-24 Parliament by supporters of the various Governments we endured, the only people who matter.
The process is affirmatory - the leader you support says the things you want to hear in the way you want to hear them. That's the management of the media and the message. It's not about argument or debate, it's about confirmation.
Thus do we have efforts like the Liz Truss podcast, GB News and doubtless other offerings from other viewpoints where A, B, C and D all sit in a studio and agree with each other for an hour repeating ad infinitum and ad nauseam the same arguments, the same views, the same critiques without any kind of counter weight. Goebbels would be proud - it's propaganda par excellence.
The echo chambers of social media play the same game - a quest for the truth it is not, an affirmation of whatever version of the truth the poster wishes to put forward is what matters. The "evidence" - distorted and doctored by AI, appears to validate the opinion but of course it would - how could it not?
I guess we’d invade Ireland, lock up all Scot Nats, and retake Cyprus?
All militarily feasible. All inconceivable.
As for the rest, it was obvious to anyone with an IQ of above room temperature that he had lost his mind five years ago.
I realise the qualification may exclude Hannan, a man so stupid he didn't realise leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market.
There is also the symbiotic nature of that relationship - Labour and the Conservatives need each other and I'd argue Starmer wouldn't be unhappy if the Conservatives revived as that would likely bring some of his supporters back against the "old enemy".
Reform and Green pose a combined existential threat to the duopoly but could become their own duopoly if you think 21st century politics is going to move towards themes of immigration and the environment as being central issues - I'm not convinced.
The Lib Dem GB share at GE2024 was 12.5%. Their current polling average on Wikipedia is very close to 12.5%. Given that it's the gap between the Tory and Lib Dem shares that is the clearest determinant of Lib Dem success, then if the Lib Dems had been able to attract even just a couple of percentage points of additional support, it would give them a bit of a cushion against a Tory resurgence.
Whatever it is that the Lib Dems are trying to do right now it isn't working.
The best way to read this is: "Myself and others on the fruitier side of the British right are terrified that our previous vocal support for Donald Trump is going to bite us viciously on the arse. There are skin diseases that poll better than he does in the UK."
https://bsky.app/profile/gabrielmilland.bsky.social/post/3mcsgt7xyt22t
It can't do any worse than the previous idiots "peace" deal.
If you think about Britain now, the facts that Ireland is part of another local power (the EU) and is sponsored by a dominant global power (the US), and the fact that Wales and Scotland are riven by separatism, are evidence of our decline.
I think we can say it's not the first as it has carried on for too long. That leaves the other two, and the second one doesn't look especially plausible right now.
This has happened quite recently with Marjorie Taylor Greene on what you would think was vulnerable political territory for Trump over the Epstein Files.
So it doesn't look like there is.
If Trump wants it he takes it. Consent is irrelevant.
I make wise judicial appointments
You make controversial nominations
He/She/It/They are packing the Court
The simple truth is that the US Supreme Court has become the third, and highest, chamber of the legislature. And so getting Your Guys on the court became *the* political battleground.
The MAGA right won the “elections” to the court, so far.
And we knew this was who Trump was by his own words back in 2016. It was known.
This kind of excuse does not wash at all. If you voted for Trump, you knew exactly what kind of individual he was, and what the risks were of doing so. Character is important when it comes to nuclear weapons and the future of the free world, and no MAGA voter should get a pass for it. Irresponsible, childish people who I wouldn't trust with anything.
I think a fairer take is that the behaviour is escalating to quite an extraordinary degree. In retrospect, it's sickening that a term like "Trump Derangement Syndrome" even exists - anyone who spouted that previously looks like a complete bellend now. Any attempt to curtail this behaviour now will be just blown away. The time to stop Trump was after January 6th, should've been stamped out then.
Horrible thing to say, but if the Capitol Police had mown down those traitors en masse I don't think we'd be here today. That degree of tolerance for sedition has ultimately undermined US democracy.
Also about 55% think the shooting was unjustified (same % as disapprove of Trump)
But only about 30% think it was justified compared with the 42% who approve of Trump.
The other 12% who approve of Trump are sitting on their hands on this, sucking their teeth.
There are two priorities.
One. Deal with the reality. Stand up to Trump. Do what needs to be done to secure British defence independent of the US.
Two. Avoid repeating the mistake. Absolutely nail Farage for his Russian connections. For his repetition of Russian talking points. For his Trump support and imitation.
We can see what a leader like Trump can do to a country's interests. We need to ensure that Britain's wannabe Trump is soundly defeated. Somehow. It would kinda help if the government was generally a bit less useless.