More Europe. This is why we left though so good luck to them on the integration project. The dig at bilateral agreements was obviously aimed at the UK as well. They really just can't seem to let it go.
Jesus.
That's quite the video.
A desperate clerisy seeking even greater power, amidst the ruins of their greatest failure. Flailing
The records show that France deaths are roughly comparable to UK ones.
Spain deaths seem to be far, far lower, unless they are recording them wrong.
Where's the disaster?
We had our massive wave of cases prior to the start of mass vaccination. That's 30k deaths or so. I hope they do not have a massive rise in cases whilst they have not yet been able to get mass vaccination going fully, though at the least they have more covered than we did at the start of our our second/third wave.
They are - back of a fag packet - at least four-six weeks away from vaccinations having any effect, if the UK experience is anything to go by.
Italy is on 30,000 daily cases, France is on 25,000, Italy has relaxed lockdown, France never had one (in this wave). It doesn't look good.
I don't think they have any choice but to go for another precautionary lockdown now, and wait for the vaccines to kick in. And pray. Otherwise they end up like Czhechia - or the UK in early January
Things don’t sound very relaxed in Italy. The equivalent of a journey, to pick one at random, from London to South Wales, would be illegal merely as a journey in Italy, before you get onto allowed activities. And there’s an effective curfew.
In Spain cases have been falling and lockdowns are being gradually reduced but there are real fears of another wave despite some progress on vaccines - though way less than in the UK.
After the gargantuan scale of this screw-up we may finally have reached the limits of "More Europe" as an answer to every problem.
Then again, people said the same kind of thing when the Eurozone crisis hit.
There'll be some form of Health Union within a few years, won't there?
At least some of those calling for a Health Union are doing so because they acknowledge there was a problem, a la Guy Verhofstadt. People might diagree with his solution, but at least that position doesn't deny a problem.
I suspect they will all be far too busy dealing with the next eurozone crisis (due shortly) to be bothered about setting up a health union.
"Blair predicted that the next general election would not be fought on the territory of tax and spend that has dominated many recent contests, or on the government’s handling of the pandemic, but on “who’s got the best plan for the future”, including how to respond to rapid technological change."
That is what he would be working on night and day. Were he leader (I wish). Currently this particular field is a dull no score draw. Without a shot on or off target at either end.
Rolling back the power of unions has been a consistent benefit for the British people since the 80s. Tories don't get the thanks they deserve for it.
But we don't mind. We know we're doing good work.
Or alternatively the power of organised labour was probably the greatest force of progress in society in the century prior to 1979. And we can look at the change in the labour/capital division of income since then, and think that maybe you are stoking the fires of something very ugly.
Yes, Twitter. Because that's the extent of the revolution these days, comrade.
And grabbing power is not an end in itself. What do they want power for?
They want power for power's sake.
In the short term: to keep the gravy coming.
In the longer term: to protect the rentier class.
Everything else is secondary, although they'd fight pretty hard to keep the monarchy (as the shining bastion of the rentier class).
Do you really believe this bullshit?
Sad
You doubt it?
That seems pretty sad for one who seems well-versed in realpolitik.
As penance you can walk me through the grand political philosophy of Matt Hancock.
He doesn't have to, because Matt Hancock, half a man though he is, wields more power in this country than someone who employs the term 'rentier' unironically ever will.
Boom! Unfortunately the EU don't have a Queen to roll out to help their vaccine rollout. Although given the Commission is unelected then maybe UVDL is their Queen? I know which one I'm glad we have.
Bet you Trump would get loads more live hits than that.
The reason for doing it is more like “Cameron Direct” isn’t it? You spend some of your time hearing the random questions the public will ask, and in the process sharpen yourself up for the campaign next time around. Makes it easier to appear human and empathetic because you’ve had practice at simulating it.
And grabbing power is not an end in itself. What do they want power for?
They want power for power's sake.
In the short term: to keep the gravy coming.
In the longer term: to protect the rentier class.
Everything else is secondary, although they'd fight pretty hard to keep the monarchy (as the shining bastion of the rentier class).
Do you really believe this bullshit?
Sad
You doubt it?
That seems pretty sad for one who seems well-versed in realpolitik.
As penance you can walk me through the grand political philosophy of Matt Hancock.
He doesn't have to, because Matt Hancock, half a man as he is, wields more power in this country than someone who employs the term 'rentier' unironically ever will.
You are of course correct, but you might not have lanced my point about them wanting power for power's sake.
Bet you Trump would get loads more live hits than that.
The reason for doing it is more like “Cameron Direct” isn’t it? You spend some of your time hearing the random questions the public will ask, and in the process sharpen yourself up for the campaign next time around. Makes it easier to appear human and empathetic because you’ve had practice at simulating it.
I actually don't think it is an inherently bad idea, but it still isn't very good turnout for a PM event. Feel like associations could work to bump that up.
Boom! Unfortunately the EU don't have a Queen to roll out to help their vaccine rollout. Although given the Commission is unelected then maybe UVDL is their Queen? I know which one I'm glad we have.
I think this has more to do with politicians significantly underperforming on YouTube, for some reason. Sunak has the same problem; as far as I'm aware, Patel and Raab don't even bother with personal or ministerial YouTube accounts. Overseas, off the top of my head, Biden also doesn't get great numbers on his YouTube videos - I actually tried to verify this by checking his channel's most recent video view numbers, but it's not even loading for me (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWNpXitY8eJ-ku6M-v25MKw?pbjreload=102).
It probably has something to do with YouTube's format disincentivising the kind of negative engagement that politicians can exploit on Twitter and Facebook to spread their message among less politically engaged people. It's also much more taxing to watch a politician speak for two minutes than it is to click retweet on a party political message from their Twitter account. In our current low-attention span age, any format that requires people to spend time listening before sharing isn't going to do well.
And grabbing power is not an end in itself. What do they want power for?
They want power for power's sake.
In the short term: to keep the gravy coming.
In the longer term: to protect the rentier class.
Everything else is secondary, although they'd fight pretty hard to keep the monarchy (as the shining bastion of the rentier class).
Do you really believe this bullshit?
Sad
You doubt it?
That seems pretty sad for one who seems well-versed in realpolitik.
As penance you can walk me through the grand political philosophy of Matt Hancock.
If you truly believe this utter bollocks you are destined for a life of bitterness and rancour, against an enemy that does not truly exist. Punching at shadows. That is sad and pointless
Seriously. Think again, Yes the Tory party is full of selfish creeps, but so is every party (political parties attract these types). There are also many good people, on all sides (even the SNP), who genuinely want the best for their fellow Britons (or Scots), they just disagree - honourably - on how that should be done.
One example. I doubt you could find a single significant Tory who would argue that the UK should revert to a US style, entirely privatised health system. If they really were pure rentier greed (with shares in Big Pharma and all), that is what would say. But they don't. None of them
And grabbing power is not an end in itself. What do they want power for?
They want power for power's sake.
In the short term: to keep the gravy coming.
In the longer term: to protect the rentier class.
Everything else is secondary, although they'd fight pretty hard to keep the monarchy (as the shining bastion of the rentier class).
Do you really believe this bullshit?
Sad
You doubt it?
That seems pretty sad for one who seems well-versed in realpolitik.
As penance you can walk me through the grand political philosophy of Matt Hancock.
He doesn't have to, because Matt Hancock, half a man as he is, wields more power in this country than someone who employs the term 'rentier' unironically ever will.
You are of course correct, but you might not have lanced my point about them wanting power for power's sake.
I presume it's for the same reason Plato recommended the pursuit of political office in the Republic: because its eschewal inevitably leads to one being governed by one's inferiors. In this case, silly lefties and armchair revolutionaries.
Tax rises are the wrong policy at this time, they're economically nonsensical.
They seem to be very popular but this is where being popular and doing the right thing have to be separated.
I am sure Tories who have always opposed corporation tax rises before (i.e. when they've been suggested by Labour) will oppose these, that is if they're honest. Let's see.
China becoming #1 only means not siding with the US, in those terms, if they were equally abhorrent which, whatever problems the US has, is not the case.
Bet you Trump would get loads more live hits than that.
The reason for doing it is more like “Cameron Direct” isn’t it? You spend some of your time hearing the random questions the public will ask, and in the process sharpen yourself up for the campaign next time around. Makes it easier to appear human and empathetic because you’ve had practice at simulating it.
I actually don't think it is an inherently bad idea, but it still isn't very good turnout for a PM event. Feel like associations could work to bump that up.
I don't think talking to Tory members was the idea behind it. Where was this advertised? I had no idea it was on. With that small a turnout is it worth his time?
Very troubling if anyone thinks “they (whoever the they is) will be powerful so we must cost up”. European leaders need to get on that. It’s dangerous.
Quite a few stories of Tory tax rebellions tonight (Telly/FT).
Did the backbenchers expect spending close to half a trillion would come without a price tag?
They've probably all assumed that if taxes are *CUT* by enough then somehow economic growth will magically make the debts disappear. Because Laffer Curve, or something.
Either that or they were planning to recoup the losses by doing various ghastly things to the poor and the unemployed. Who can say?
Tax rises are the wrong policy at this time, they're economically nonsensical.
They seem to be very popular but this is where being popular and doing the right thing have to be separated.
I am sure Tories who have always opposed corporation tax rises before (i.e. when they've been suggested by Labour) will oppose these, that is if they're honest. Let's see.
One can construct an argument that if you’re a profitable company this year or next (thinking of Serco or Tesco) you likely have a business model that was flattered by Covid, and owe us all a windfall tax for a year or two. I’m not fully sold, but I see the argument.
Tax rises are the wrong policy at this time, they're economically nonsensical.
They seem to be very popular but this is where being popular and doing the right thing have to be separated.
I am sure Tories who have always opposed corporation tax rises before (i.e. when they've been suggested by Labour) will oppose these, that is if they're honest. Let's see.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
Yes, I'm not sure why he left the UK off that tweet. He also thinks Russia will eventually have to join the side standing up to China as well.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Tax rises are the wrong policy at this time, they're economically nonsensical.
They seem to be very popular but this is where being popular and doing the right thing have to be separated.
I am sure Tories who have always opposed corporation tax rises before (i.e. when they've been suggested by Labour) will oppose these, that is if they're honest. Let's see.
Absolutely 100% agree with you Horse. You are entirely correct.
We should be having stimulus tax cuts in the areas of the economy devastated by the pandemic but no tax rises at all. In a couple of years once the damage of the recession is behind us it will be time to review the state of the economy then and if there's a structural deficit in ~2-3 years time then it will be time to eliminate it. Not yet, not during the recession.
Tax rises are the wrong policy at this time, they're economically nonsensical.
They seem to be very popular but this is where being popular and doing the right thing have to be separated.
I am sure Tories who have always opposed corporation tax rises before (i.e. when they've been suggested by Labour) will oppose these, that is if they're honest. Let's see.
Could not agree more. Keynes.
It is just a matter of printing money now for all parties. The left like it because they can spend loads, the right like it because it enhances the wealth of the asset owning classes.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Ignorant short sighted madness.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
Yes, I'm not sure why he left the UK off that tweet. He also thinks Russia will eventually have to join the side standing up to China as well.
Russia with a collapsing oil price is in trouble unless or until it either reconciles with the West or becomes a Chinese client state. The former will eventually be more palatable.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Ignorant short sighted madness.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
We cannot do anything to stop the rise of China. Let others worry about it.
Bet you Trump would get loads more live hits than that.
The reason for doing it is more like “Cameron Direct” isn’t it? You spend some of your time hearing the random questions the public will ask, and in the process sharpen yourself up for the campaign next time around. Makes it easier to appear human and empathetic because you’ve had practice at simulating it.
I actually don't think it is an inherently bad idea, but it still isn't very good turnout for a PM event. Feel like associations could work to bump that up.
I don't think talking to Tory members was the idea behind it. Where was this advertised? I had no idea it was on. With that small a turnout is it worth his time?
I wasn't suggesting he talk to Tory members, just that they could boost the turnout figure to look better.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
No, it is now clearly a threat to our western liberal ideals, unless you are happy to live in a world which kowtows to a China which tramples over human rights whenever or wherever it likes,
The thing about China is that it was always the biggest power on earth, by sheer population, but it was never previously expansionist. It was content to be honoured by grovelling ambassadors as The Middle Kingdom. The pivotal culture. Occasionally it would invade Vietnam or wherever (generating a culture of anti-Chinese hostility that prevails today) but mostly it stayed within its border.
It was never classically imperialist. Even when it sent out navies that dwarfed European navies of the time, in the early Renaissance, it had a quick look at Africa - then turned back home. China was all that mattered.
China under Xi Jinping is different. This is a China that wants to expand. For a start, it wants Taiwan. It has already devoured Hong Kong. If you can't see this then pffffff. The Economist did a great article on how Taiwan will be the next flashpoint
If you truly believe this utter bollocks you are destined for a life of bitterness and rancour, against an enemy that does not truly exist. Punching at shadows. That is sad and pointless
Seriously. Think again, Yes the Tory party is full of selfish creeps, but so is every party (political parties attract these types). There are also many good people, on all sides (even the SNP), who genuinely want the best for their fellow Britons (or Scots), they just disagree - honourably - on how that should be done.
One example. I doubt you could find a single significant Tory who would argue that the UK should revert to a US style, entirely privatised health system. If they really were pure rentier greed (with shares in Big Pharma and all), that is what would say. But they don't. None of them
Hannan.
Yes, I know he is a shameless liar who will bend over for anybody's buck, but he has just been made a lord.
And of course political parties attract the sociopathic types, and yes, there are, or at least used to be, Tories who wanted the best and honourably disagreed etc.
Not many now though. They're mostly a bunch of troughing shysters.
Unless you think there is a political belief that unites them outside of Europeans stink, Jocks should know their place, and Corbyn wants to eat your granny.
The ranks of ex-Tories on here (and there are enough of them) will mostly tell you the same thing, if you don't want to take the bitter and rancorous words of a liberal lefty like me.
Tax rises are the wrong policy at this time, they're economically nonsensical.
They seem to be very popular but this is where being popular and doing the right thing have to be separated.
I am sure Tories who have always opposed corporation tax rises before (i.e. when they've been suggested by Labour) will oppose these, that is if they're honest. Let's see.
Could not agree more. Keynes.
It is just a matter of printing money now for all parties. The left like it because they can spend loads, the right like it because it enhances the wealth of the asset owning classes.
As Blair implies in the G article I linked to above. Labour can also use the opportunity of having one of the major Tory attack lines neutralised. There is No Alternative. Not at the moment.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Ignorant short sighted madness.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
We cannot do anything to stop the rise of China. Let others worry about it.
We can not do anything to stop the rise of China but we can act as part of an alliance to contain them.
When it comes to the containment alliance we are part of the "others". As one of the free world's leading economic and military powers we need to be a part of the alliance we can't just abandon it and expect others to do our dirty work for us.
If you truly believe this utter bollocks you are destined for a life of bitterness and rancour, against an enemy that does not truly exist. Punching at shadows. That is sad and pointless
Seriously. Think again, Yes the Tory party is full of selfish creeps, but so is every party (political parties attract these types). There are also many good people, on all sides (even the SNP), who genuinely want the best for their fellow Britons (or Scots), they just disagree - honourably - on how that should be done.
One example. I doubt you could find a single significant Tory who would argue that the UK should revert to a US style, entirely privatised health system. If they really were pure rentier greed (with shares in Big Pharma and all), that is what would say. But they don't. None of them
Hannan.
Yes, I know he is a shameless liar who will bend over for anybody's buck, but he has just been made a lord.
And of course political parties attract the sociopathic types, and yes, there are, or at least used to be, Tories who wanted the best and honourably disagreed etc.
Not many now though. They're mostly a bunch of troughing shysters.
Unless you think there is a political belief that unites them outside of Europeans stink, Jocks should know their place, and Corbyn wants to eat your granny.
The ranks of ex-Tories on here (and there are enough of them) will mostly tell you the same thing, if you don't want to take the bitter and rancorous words of a liberal lefty like me.
You're not a liberal-lefty, you're an embittered loser. The sooner you learn the difference, the better for your soul.
Losing is the Human Condition. We all die. Death wins. We lose. Adjusting to that fact is a key to happiness, in my experience
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Ignorant short sighted madness.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
We cannot do anything to stop the rise of China. Let others worry about it.
Inspiring message - some things are too tough, so let's not even try!
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Ignorant short sighted madness.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
We cannot do anything to stop the rise of China. Let others worry about it.
FFS. This is nearly like saying we can't stop the rise of Nazi Germany, let others worry.
China is committing a genocide and destroying Hong Kong.
I thought you were on the Left?! You're MEANT to worry about this shit
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Ignorant short sighted madness.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
We cannot do anything to stop the rise of China. Let others worry about it.
FFS. This is nearly like saying we can't stop the rise of Nazi Germany, let others worry.
China is committing a genocide and destroying Hong Kong.
I thought you were on the Left?! You're MEANT to worry about this shit
Perhaps for some people the rise of communist China to global domination isn't the bug, but the feature?
Boom! Unfortunately the EU don't have a Queen to roll out to help their vaccine rollout. Although given the Commission is unelected then maybe UVDL is their Queen? I know which one I'm glad we have.
Serves them right. It's what happens when your head of state has a roll-out from a wicker basket.....
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
These are all pre-requisites to winning power of course - but it's good to see the current leadership at least understands that.
I just wish they'd start talking up Labour's record in Government more, they seem still utterly afraid to say any of the good things Blair did. As one of the most popular PMs and periods of Government in recent history (Iraq aside), this is strange.
I think Starmer is making all the correct moves in the background, even if that ultimately doesn't result in victory.
Putting up taxes at this stage is the economics of the madhouse. Only a psychopath would choke off aggregate demand when we are trying to recover from a global pandemic. I’m surprised it’s even being suggested.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
No, it is now clearly a threat to our western liberal ideals, unless you are happy to live in a world which kowtows to a China which tramples over human rights whenever or wherever it likes,
The thing about China is that it was always the biggest power on earth, by sheer population, but it was never previously expansionist. It was content to be honoured by grovelling ambassadors as The Middle Kingdom. The pivotal culture. Occasionally it would invade Vietnam or wherever (generating a culture of anti-Chinese hostility that prevails today) but mostly it stayed within its border.
It was never classically imperialist. Even when it sent out navies that dwarfed European navies of the time, in the early Renaissance, it had a quick look at Africa - then turned back home. China was all that mattered.
China under Xi Jinping is different. This is a China that wants to expand. For a start, it wants Taiwan. It has already devoured Hong Kong. If you can't see this then pffffff. The Economist did a great article on how Taiwan will be the next flashpoint
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
Ignorant short sighted madness.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
We cannot do anything to stop the rise of China. Let others worry about it.
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
Noone has a clue what it's about
And even fewer care. It seems to have a few arch-unionists, Scotland-haters and Sturgeon-sceptics in a lather. Nobody else has a clue!
Putting up taxes at this stage is the economics of the madhouse. Only a psychopath would choke off aggregate demand when we are trying to recover from a global pandemic. I’m surprised it’s even being suggested.
Rishi Sunak is economically clueless.
He's been absolutely horrendous throughout COVID, making the wrong decisions at every turn apart from the furlough scheme, which he took from somewhere else.
If we had followed his advice, we would have at every turn, been worse off. It staggers me that he is popular.
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
I'm still leaning that way. The fact is that Sturgeon and the SNP have something that a lot of Scots want, and they'd still want it even if she fed Salmond through a sausage-making machine on live TV.
Having said that, they're now entering the kind of banana republic territory in which ordinary people are starting to take notice. But they still might not care.
These are all pre-requisites to winning power of course - but it's good to see the current leadership at least understands that.
I just wish they'd start talking up Labour's record in Government more, they seem still utterly afraid to say any of the good things Blair did. As one of the most popular PMs and periods of Government in recent history (Iraq aside), this is strange.
I think Starmer is making all the correct moves in the background, even if that ultimately doesn't result in victory.
Yep. Best PM of my lifetime. We don't speak up for him and his record enough. See the number of "Labour hates Blair more than the Tories" posts which go unchallenged.
The Jewish Marriage Council (JMC) has said that while young Jews from a strictly Orthodox background are not “forced” to marry, they can nevertheless feel “coerced”.
In its astonishing admission, the Hendon-based organisation appeared to be trying to justify the traditional Charedi shidduch system of families working together for their children to meet in arranged introductions.
“This is done with consent from both parties which is a requirement under Jewish law,” said the JMC. “While there may be instances whereby one might feel coerced, we have not come across any party feeling as if they have been forced.”
Oh thank goodness, it's all totally fine if there is coercion. Goodness knows when intense coercion cross the line.
And if both parties stand there and say "I do" without visible arm twisting, how exactly do you determine exactly what motivation they have for marriage, or how the relationship came about?
I've a young lady I'm quite fond of, and being quite a traditionalist about this sort of thing it's likely that at some point in the not too distant future, I'll be asking her dad for permission to marry her. Does that make it arranged marriage? What if I was set up with her by my parents (they tried this once, I resisted fairly successfully 😂)...?
Ultimately, if those being married freely agree to it, I can't see what else can (or should) be done.
As an aside, if all the EU doses were actually in peoples' arms, they around 12% of EU adults would have received one dose, and the EU would only be a smidgen behind the US (14% of adults with at least one dose).
France and Germany have taken an EU vaccine procurement disaster, and actually made it worse.
Interesting he can't bring himself to mention the UK, a nuclear power, with roughly the 5th-7th most pwerful military in the world
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
No, it is now clearly a threat to our western liberal ideals, unless you are happy to live in a world which kowtows to a China which tramples over human rights whenever or wherever it likes,
The thing about China is that it was always the biggest power on earth, by sheer population, but it was never previously expansionist. It was content to be honoured by grovelling ambassadors as The Middle Kingdom. The pivotal culture. Occasionally it would invade Vietnam or wherever (generating a culture of anti-Chinese hostility that prevails today) but mostly it stayed within its border.
It was never classically imperialist. Even when it sent out navies that dwarfed European navies of the time, in the early Renaissance, it had a quick look at Africa - then turned back home. China was all that mattered.
China under Xi Jinping is different. This is a China that wants to expand. For a start, it wants Taiwan. It has already devoured Hong Kong. If you can't see this then pffffff. The Economist did a great article on how Taiwan will be the next flashpoint
Taiwan is not expansionism though. It is within its border. The PRC and Taiwan agree on this point.
What the West needs to do, sharpish, is start cultivating the many powers AROUND China that are traditionally wary of China because they have experienced its dominance
Vietnam is the prime example. The Vietnamese were never anti-western, they just wanted freedom - from the West and China (which has invaded and conquered Vietnam several times). The Vietnam War was a terrible error, which misconstrued the desires of the Vietnamese people.
As US Sec of State McNamara said, in retrospect, America should have given all the Vietnamese people fridges rather than bombs, and the war would never have happened, and American ideals would have triumphed, anyway.
Ditto India, never conquered by China, but certainly knows and fears its presence.
This can be done. Deterrence and containment. Measured equality. We just have to hold our nerve. It will be harder because an economically super-powerful China is a far greater foe than the USSR. The Chinese will try and pick off individual nations with trade deals and the like. Reducing the enemy.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
You're so wrong that I can't be bothered debating this in detail. But consider one thing; six months after China invades Taiwan (whch Xi will do as soon as he thinks he can get away with it) every western economy will be in deep recession, with companies large and small going to the wall in droves.
Because Taiwan is semiconductor island.
Today it's hard to buy an XBox or gaming PC. If China takes out Taiwan you won't be able to buy pretty much anything with a semiconductor in it. Phones, laptops, cars, TVs, washing machines, medical equipment, and so on. It's hard to find any of these that don't depend on chips made in Taiwan. Companies that make these goods will be dead as mutton.
Fixing a semiconductor gap like that will take the west a decade or more.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
Could it not be, rather humanly, a mixture of both? Why demand a morally ideal moment?
China is a threat to its own people, but not to us.
You're so wrong that I can't be bothered debating this in detail. But consider one thing; six months after China invades Taiwan (whch Xi will do as soon as he thinks he can get away with it) every western economy will be in deep recession, with companies large and small going to the wall in droves.
Because Taiwan is semiconductor island.
Today it's hard to buy an XBox or gaming PC. If China takes out Taiwan you won't be able to buy pretty much anything with a semiconductor in it. Phones, laptops, cars, TVs, washing machines, medical equipment, and so on. It's hard to find any of these that don't depend on chips made in Taiwan. Companies that make these goods will be dead as mutton.
Fixing a semiconductor gap like that will take the west a decade or more.
I reckon China could probably invade Taiwan now, and win. It is already very close.
And America will only get weaker in the South China Sea, relatively speaking.
And will Biden risk all-out war to save Taiwan? Really?
I doubt it. Trump might have, because he was mad. With him out of the equation, the moment approaches.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
Could it not be, rather humanly, a mixture of both? Why demand a morally ideal moment?
You misconstrue. I am pointing out hypocrisy. And arguing we should never have let ourselves get in such a position. Now we have, the threat to the freedom of various poorer countries to economic blackmail is justification for a firm line with the PRC. Bleeding hearts about Uyghurs, HK and human rights isn't. Because we willingly turned a blind eye to them for decades. And then there was Tibet.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
At the turn of the century it looked like after the disaster of Tian'an'men Square China was finally liberalising.
In recent years its become crystal clear they're not and they have become much worse, the persecution of Uighurs has come to light and the disbarring of Hong Kong democrats has all been done in recent years.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
About 1951, in Korea.
Ended completely by 1972. When in the next nearly 50 years?
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
Could it not be, rather humanly, a mixture of both? Why demand a morally ideal moment?
You misconstrue. I am pointing out hypocrisy. And arguing we should never have let ourselves get in such a position. Now we have, the threat to the freedom of various poorer countries to economic blackmail is justification for a firm line with the PRC. Bleeding hearts about Uyghurs, HK and human rights isn't. Because we willingly turned a blind eye to them for decades. And then there was Tibet.
Except we didn't turn a blind eye to them for decades.
These issues have become stark in recent years, not decades ago.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
Could it not be, rather humanly, a mixture of both? Why demand a morally ideal moment?
You misconstrue. I am pointing out hypocrisy. And arguing we should never have let ourselves get in such a position. Now we have, the threat to the freedom of various poorer countries to economic blackmail is justification for a firm line with the PRC. Bleeding hearts about Uyghurs, HK and human rights isn't. Because we willingly turned a blind eye to them for decades. And then there was Tibet.
This is unfair on the West. And also ridiculous
Perhaps we should have invaded and conquered China after Tibet? Is that what you want? I doubt it. You don't like the West invading and conquering people. Fair enough.
So we let China be. and, miraculously, it slowly (after much strife) became more friendly and capitalist under Deng Xiao Ping, and then his successors, and then for a while there was a genuine hope that China was progressing to a more western-type regime, with something like free speech, along with free trade, certainly a superpower we could engage with, and, hand in hand, maintain world peace.
Sadly, since Xi Jinping got into power, China has reverted. It is now much more dictatorial. The democratic moment has gone. Evidence of truly terrible atrocities (the Uighurs, and others) has come to light.
It really is, I fear, a bit like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Not as bad, but there are echoes.
In 1934 the idea of fighting Germany would have seemed absurdly aggressive, in 1937 it was plausible, by 1939 we had no choice
I hope it doesn't come to that. The whole point of this thread is that Yank who said, if we are clever, we can contain China and still maintain World Peace. A Cold War 2.0 but with extra trade. He is right
I reckon China could probably invade Taiwan now, and win. It is already very close.
I don't think the PLAN has enough amphibious capability yet. But that won't be the case forever. As you say, the sands in Taiwan's timer are trickling away.
If I were the Taiwanese goverment I'd be trying very hard to develop nukes on the quiet.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
About 1951, in Korea.
Ended completely by 1972. When in the next nearly 50 years?
Nah, they were always a worry, just overshadowed by the USSR. When the USSR fell, we assumed they’d reform to be less dangerous. We were wrong and we then took our eye off the ball. Many of the issues the West now faces are because we were so desperate to believe in world peace when the USSR fell.
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
I'm still leaning that way. The fact is that Sturgeon and the SNP have something that a lot of Scots want, and they'd still want it even if she fed Salmond through a sausage-making machine on live TV.
Having said that, they're now entering the kind of banana republic territory in which ordinary people are starting to take notice. But they still might not care.
Yep, that's basically my view. At this point Sturgeon and the SNP are basically untouchable within Scotland because of how atrophied the opposition is, so there won't be any electoral consequences for her blatant attempt to use taxpayer money to stitch up a political rival and then lean on the legislature and judiciary to cover it up. But it's indicative of just how bad the political environment is in Scotland, and eventually all the sleaze will burst the SNP bubble.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
At the turn of the century it looked like after the disaster of Tian'an'men Square China was finally liberalising.
In recent years its become crystal clear they're not and they have become much worse, the persecution of Uighurs has come to light and the disbarring of Hong Kong democrats has all been done in recent years.
Come off it. I was aware of the persecution of the Uyghurs in the 90's. And the Tibetans before that. And the breaches of the HK treaty have been on going. What you mean by "liberalising" was merely opening up their huge population to the possibility of foreign profit. The human rights record was always appalling. It is true they have worsened under Xi, but we've been too busy celebrating them buying our football clubs to notice.
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
It was entertaining when the PB Scotch experts got all excited on the back of a Scottish sub sample though. Never change PB (you won’t).
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
Could it not be, rather humanly, a mixture of both? Why demand a morally ideal moment?
You misconstrue. I am pointing out hypocrisy. And arguing we should never have let ourselves get in such a position. Now we have, the threat to the freedom of various poorer countries to economic blackmail is justification for a firm line with the PRC. Bleeding hearts about Uyghurs, HK and human rights isn't. Because we willingly turned a blind eye to them for decades. And then there was Tibet.
This is unfair on the West. And also ridiculous
Perhaps we should have invaded and conquered China after Tibet? Is that what you want? I doubt it. You don't like the West invading and conquering people. Fair enough.
So we let China be. and, miraculously, it slowly (after much strife) became more friendly and capitalist under Deng Xiao Ping, and then his successors, and then for a while there was a genuine hope that China was progressing to a more western-type regime, with something like free speech, along with free trade, certainly a superpower we could engage with, and, hand in hand, maintain world peace.
Sadly, since Xi Jinping got into power, China has reverted. It is now much more dictatorial. The democratic moment has gone. Evidence of truly terrible atrocities (the Uighurs, and others) has come to light.
It really is, I fear, a bit like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Not as bad, but there are echoes.
In 1934 the idea of fighting Germany would have seemed absurdly aggressive, in 1937 it was plausible, by 1939 we had no choice
I hope it doesn't come to that. The whole point of this thread is that Yank who said, if we are clever, we can contain China and still maintain World Peace. A Cold War 2.0 but with extra trade. He is right
Nah. It's been a bastard all along. Just ebbed and flowed in the extent of its bastardy. Nothing has "come to light". Folk have just started paying attention. And no. War with China was never the answer. A bit less drooling at the huge profits with a soupcon of "genuine hope" and a dash of Western triumphalism was.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
About 1951, in Korea.
Ended completely by 1972. When in the next nearly 50 years?
Nah, they were always a worry, just overshadowed by the USSR. When the USSR fell, we assumed they’d reform to be less dangerous. We were wrong and we then took our eye off the ball. Many of the issues the West now faces are because we were so desperate to believe in world peace when the USSR fell.
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
It was entertaining when the PB Scotch experts got all excited on the back of a Scottish sub sample though. Never change PB (you won’t).
I witnessed that fiasco. There was once a time on PB where the mere mention of a Scottish subsample would invoke the ban hammer. I think Stuart Dickson was exiled to Sweden through much of the 2010s.
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
I'm still leaning that way. The fact is that Sturgeon and the SNP have something that a lot of Scots want, and they'd still want it even if she fed Salmond through a sausage-making machine on live TV.
Having said that, they're now entering the kind of banana republic territory in which ordinary people are starting to take notice. But they still might not care.
Yep, that's basically my view. At this point Sturgeon and the SNP are basically untouchable within Scotland because of how atrophied the opposition is, so there won't be any electoral consequences for her blatant attempt to use taxpayer money to stitch up a political rival and then lean on the legislature and judiciary to cover it up. But it's indicative of just how bad the political environment is in Scotland, and eventually all the sleaze will burst the SNP bubble.
I don't think that's a very fair assessment of the opposition in Scotland. They've behaved as a conventional opposition - try to demonstrate lack of competence, say how they'd do things better, etc. But the SNP isn't a conventional governing party. And it isn't about competence, it's about the SNPs version of a Scottish identity cuckooing the life out of anyone else's. The opposition parties have brought knives to a gunfight.
The good news is they're wising up quickly. The 'Union unit' might be having a troubled inception, but its very existence is good news. It is more good news that The Scotland office is being beefed up, and senior UK pols are visiting more often. It is still more good news that the UK Government didn't fall into the trap of giving EU powers to the Scottish Government, and great news that they will start funding projects directly with councils in Scotland. For the first time in a long time, the SNP are not having everything their way. Doesn't mean minds are going to change overnight, but it does mean the groundwork is being laid.
Via @Kantar_UKI , 18-22 Feb. Changes w/ 21-25 Jan.
SKS fans please explain
DBMIVN (Don't blame me I voted Nandy)
You are becoming as tiresome as the Boris rampers, picking and choosing your polls. I don't recall you commenting on yesterday's 2 point margin "outlier".
manic keith preachers behind by between 2 or 7% when any other leader was going to be "ahead by 20%"
Bet you Trump would get loads more live hits than that.
The reason for doing it is more like “Cameron Direct” isn’t it? You spend some of your time hearing the random questions the public will ask, and in the process sharpen yourself up for the campaign next time around. Makes it easier to appear human and empathetic because you’ve had practice at simulating it.
I actually don't think it is an inherently bad idea, but it still isn't very good turnout for a PM event. Feel like associations could work to bump that up.
I don't think talking to Tory members was the idea behind it. Where was this advertised? I had no idea it was on. With that small a turnout is it worth his time?
I wasn't suggesting he talk to Tory members, just that they could boost the turnout figure to look better.
A more interesting question is how many you can take off the recorded viewer figure for his own staff and PR minders watching in, the tech guys making sure the equipment is all working, along with various journalists, opposition party staffers deputed to monitor it, his own MPs cheering along etc. The number of actual uninvolved “members of the public” must have been tiny.
If you truly believe this utter bollocks you are destined for a life of bitterness and rancour, against an enemy that does not truly exist. Punching at shadows. That is sad and pointless
Seriously. Think again, Yes the Tory party is full of selfish creeps, but so is every party (political parties attract these types). There are also many good people, on all sides (even the SNP), who genuinely want the best for their fellow Britons (or Scots), they just disagree - honourably - on how that should be done.
One example. I doubt you could find a single significant Tory who would argue that the UK should revert to a US style, entirely privatised health system. If they really were pure rentier greed (with shares in Big Pharma and all), that is what would say. But they don't. None of them
Hannan.
Yes, I know he is a shameless liar who will bend over for anybody's buck, but he has just been made a lord.
And of course political parties attract the sociopathic types, and yes, there are, or at least used to be, Tories who wanted the best and honourably disagreed etc.
Not many now though. They're mostly a bunch of troughing shysters.
Unless you think there is a political belief that unites them outside of Europeans stink, Jocks should know their place, and Corbyn wants to eat your granny.
The ranks of ex-Tories on here (and there are enough of them) will mostly tell you the same thing, if you don't want to take the bitter and rancorous words of a liberal lefty like me.
You're not a liberal-lefty, you're an embittered loser. The sooner you learn the difference, the better for your soul.
Losing is the Human Condition. We all die. Death wins. We lose. Adjusting to that fact is a key to happiness, in my experience
Of PB’ers posting here, your happiness level seems distinctly below average, to me. To the point where at times you have had many of us worried.
A question. Genuine one. When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC? It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades. Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around? If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
An interesting and not unfair point. In the same way that the Second World War began as a geopolitical one and only became a moral one as it gradually emerged how bad the other side was, which to a significant event was afterwards. Next to no decisions actually taken during the war had anything to do with stopping or slowing the genocide.
The logic of your point does however point toward acting earlier rather than later.
The apparent difference with China is that its ambitions appear either domestic, or insofar as they are global, are economic. It doesn’t appear to want to spread either military dominance or its political ideology across the world in the same way as previous dominant powers have set out to do. You might say that they are keeping their designs secret, but history would suggest that is rather difficult and there are always clues.
Am I the only one who thinks the Salmond-Sturgeon dust up will fizzle out to nothing eventually, and won’t make much difference to anything in the long run?
I'm still leaning that way. The fact is that Sturgeon and the SNP have something that a lot of Scots want, and they'd still want it even if she fed Salmond through a sausage-making machine on live TV.
Having said that, they're now entering the kind of banana republic territory in which ordinary people are starting to take notice. But they still might not care.
Yep, that's basically my view. At this point Sturgeon and the SNP are basically untouchable within Scotland because of how atrophied the opposition is, so there won't be any electoral consequences for her blatant attempt to use taxpayer money to stitch up a political rival and then lean on the legislature and judiciary to cover it up. But it's indicative of just how bad the political environment is in Scotland, and eventually all the sleaze will burst the SNP bubble.
We’ve been through a period where a Tory government was willing both to suspend parliament and break international treaties and law to get its way, yet most voters don’t appear to care. The surprise is why observers find the same phenomenon on Scotland so surprising.
Comments
That's quite the video.
A desperate clerisy seeking even greater power, amidst the ruins of their greatest failure. Flailing
The empty seats say it all, symbolically
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/25/tony-blair-says-cut-starmer-some-slack-over-tax-comments
Blair in the G. Catching my eye this
"Blair predicted that the next general election would not be fought on the territory of tax and spend that has dominated many recent contests, or on the government’s handling of the pandemic, but on “who’s got the best plan for the future”, including how to respond to rapid technological change."
That is what he would be working on night and day. Were he leader (I wish).
Currently this particular field is a dull no score draw. Without a shot on or off target at either end.
https://twitter.com/stuartdhughes/status/1365056830779580418?s=20
That seems pretty sad for one who seems well-versed in realpolitik.
As penance you can walk me through the grand political philosophy of Matt Hancock.
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1365059654523498507?s=20
It probably has something to do with YouTube's format disincentivising the kind of negative engagement that politicians can exploit on Twitter and Facebook to spread their message among less politically engaged people. It's also much more taxing to watch a politician speak for two minutes than it is to click retweet on a party political message from their Twitter account. In our current low-attention span age, any format that requires people to spend time listening before sharing isn't going to do well.
Seriously. Think again, Yes the Tory party is full of selfish creeps, but so is every party (political parties attract these types). There are also many good people, on all sides (even the SNP), who genuinely want the best for their fellow Britons (or Scots), they just disagree - honourably - on how that should be done.
One example. I doubt you could find a single significant Tory who would argue that the UK should revert to a US style, entirely privatised health system. If they really were pure rentier greed (with shares in Big Pharma and all), that is what would say. But they don't. None of them
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1364728358832140292?s=20
https://twitter.com/ELuttwak/status/1364706996189093890
They seem to be very popular but this is where being popular and doing the right thing have to be separated.
I am sure Tories who have always opposed corporation tax rises before (i.e. when they've been suggested by Labour) will oppose these, that is if they're honest. Let's see.
Where was this advertised? I had no idea it was on.
With that small a turnout is it worth his time?
This is the time for tax cuts not tax rises.
Of course he is right, nonetheless. If the democratic West unites, we can contain China, and maintain a balance of power (as we did with the Soviet Union). It will be harder, because China is so much more economically puissant. China will, for a while, become the number 1 power in the world, and the Yanks have to deal with that, psychologically, without lashing out. Traditionally, when one superpower supplants, or tries to supplant, another, a war happens: eg World War One when Germany menaced the hegemony of Britain
But it is not impossible to avoid war, if we quietly unite, and stick by our principles.
Can we do it? We probably need a young, visionary leader in Washington, to gather the western tribes together.
Yikes.
We should be having stimulus tax cuts in the areas of the economy devastated by the pandemic but no tax rises at all. In a couple of years once the damage of the recession is behind us it will be time to review the state of the economy then and if there's a structural deficit in ~2-3 years time then it will be time to eliminate it. Not yet, not during the recession.
Powerful and aggressive totalitarian regimes are a threat to all free people. Did the 20th century teach you nothing?
The thing about China is that it was always the biggest power on earth, by sheer population, but it was never previously expansionist. It was content to be honoured by grovelling ambassadors as The Middle Kingdom. The pivotal culture. Occasionally it would invade Vietnam or wherever (generating a culture of anti-Chinese hostility that prevails today) but mostly it stayed within its border.
It was never classically imperialist. Even when it sent out navies that dwarfed European navies of the time, in the early Renaissance, it had a quick look at Africa - then turned back home. China was all that mattered.
China under Xi Jinping is different. This is a China that wants to expand. For a start, it wants Taiwan. It has already devoured Hong Kong. If you can't see this then pffffff. The Economist did a great article on how Taiwan will be the next flashpoint
https://www.economist.com/china/2021/02/20/china-faces-fateful-choices-especially-involving-taiwan
Yes, I know he is a shameless liar who will bend over for anybody's buck, but he has just been made a lord.
And of course political parties attract the sociopathic types, and yes, there are, or at least used to be, Tories who wanted the best and honourably disagreed etc.
Not many now though. They're mostly a bunch of troughing shysters.
Unless you think there is a political belief that unites them outside of Europeans stink, Jocks should know their place, and Corbyn wants to eat your granny.
The ranks of ex-Tories on here (and there are enough of them) will mostly tell you the same thing, if you don't want to take the bitter and rancorous words of a liberal lefty like me.
There is No Alternative. Not at the moment.
When it comes to the containment alliance we are part of the "others". As one of the free world's leading economic and military powers we need to be a part of the alliance we can't just abandon it and expect others to do our dirty work for us.
Losing is the Human Condition. We all die. Death wins. We lose. Adjusting to that fact is a key to happiness, in my experience
China is committing a genocide and destroying Hong Kong.
I thought you were on the Left?! You're MEANT to worry about this shit
These are all pre-requisites to winning power of course - but it's good to see the current leadership at least understands that.
I just wish they'd start talking up Labour's record in Government more, they seem still utterly afraid to say any of the good things Blair did. As one of the most popular PMs and periods of Government in recent history (Iraq aside), this is strange.
I think Starmer is making all the correct moves in the background, even if that ultimately doesn't result in victory.
The PRC and Taiwan agree on this point.
He's been absolutely horrendous throughout COVID, making the wrong decisions at every turn apart from the furlough scheme, which he took from somewhere else.
If we had followed his advice, we would have at every turn, been worse off. It staggers me that he is popular.
Having said that, they're now entering the kind of banana republic territory in which ordinary people are starting to take notice. But they still might not care.
See the number of "Labour hates Blair more than the Tories" posts which go unchallenged.
I've a young lady I'm quite fond of, and being quite a traditionalist about this sort of thing it's likely that at some point in the not too distant future, I'll be asking her dad for permission to marry her. Does that make it arranged marriage? What if I was set up with her by my parents (they tried this once, I resisted fairly successfully 😂)...?
Ultimately, if those being married freely agree to it, I can't see what else can (or should) be done.
France and Germany have taken an EU vaccine procurement disaster, and actually made it worse.
Vietnam is the prime example. The Vietnamese were never anti-western, they just wanted freedom - from the West and China (which has invaded and conquered Vietnam several times). The Vietnam War was a terrible error, which misconstrued the desires of the Vietnamese people.
As US Sec of State McNamara said, in retrospect, America should have given all the Vietnamese people fridges rather than bombs, and the war would never have happened, and American ideals would have triumphed, anyway.
Ditto India, never conquered by China, but certainly knows and fears its presence.
This can be done. Deterrence and containment. Measured equality. We just have to hold our nerve. It will be harder because an economically super-powerful China is a far greater foe than the USSR. The Chinese will try and pick off individual nations with trade deals and the like. Reducing the enemy.
Stand firm!
When exactly did it become morally imperative to stand up to the PRC?
It wasn't when they started persecuting Uyghurs, having an appalling human rights record, or in breach of their obligations to HK. We were cashing in fat profits during those decades.
Or is it when it became apparent they may be making money off us rather than the other way around?
If it is the latter then spare me the moralising.
Because Taiwan is semiconductor island.
Today it's hard to buy an XBox or gaming PC. If China takes out Taiwan you won't be able to buy pretty much anything with a semiconductor in it. Phones, laptops, cars, TVs, washing machines, medical equipment, and so on. It's hard to find any of these that don't depend on chips made in Taiwan. Companies that make these goods will be dead as mutton.
Fixing a semiconductor gap like that will take the west a decade or more.
And America will only get weaker in the South China Sea, relatively speaking.
And will Biden risk all-out war to save Taiwan? Really?
I doubt it. Trump might have, because he was mad. With him out of the equation, the moment approaches.
Today German has more cases
10,782
and more deaths
393
than the UK.
I can't remember another time when this happened, for several months
I am pointing out hypocrisy. And arguing we should never have let ourselves get in such a position.
Now we have, the threat to the freedom of various poorer countries to economic blackmail is justification for a firm line with the PRC.
Bleeding hearts about Uyghurs, HK and human rights isn't. Because we willingly turned a blind eye to them for decades.
And then there was Tibet.
In recent years its become crystal clear they're not and they have become much worse, the persecution of Uighurs has come to light and the disbarring of Hong Kong democrats has all been done in recent years.
These issues have become stark in recent years, not decades ago.
Perhaps we should have invaded and conquered China after Tibet? Is that what you want? I doubt it. You don't like the West invading and conquering people. Fair enough.
So we let China be. and, miraculously, it slowly (after much strife) became more friendly and capitalist under Deng Xiao Ping, and then his successors, and then for a while there was a genuine hope that China was progressing to a more western-type regime, with something like free speech, along with free trade, certainly a superpower we could engage with, and, hand in hand, maintain world peace.
Sadly, since Xi Jinping got into power, China has reverted. It is now much more dictatorial. The democratic moment has gone. Evidence of truly terrible atrocities (the Uighurs, and others) has come to light.
It really is, I fear, a bit like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Not as bad, but there are echoes.
In 1934 the idea of fighting Germany would have seemed absurdly aggressive, in 1937 it was plausible, by 1939 we had no choice
I hope it doesn't come to that. The whole point of this thread is that Yank who said, if we are clever, we can contain China and still maintain World Peace. A Cold War 2.0 but with extra trade. He is right
If I were the Taiwanese goverment I'd be trying very hard to develop nukes on the quiet.
And the breaches of the HK treaty have been on going.
What you mean by "liberalising" was merely opening up their huge population to the possibility of foreign profit.
The human rights record was always appalling.
It is true they have worsened under Xi, but we've been too busy celebrating them buying our football clubs to notice.
https://twitter.com/tadhghickey/status/1364864367121022977?s=21
Nothing has "come to light". Folk have just started paying attention.
And no. War with China was never the answer.
A bit less drooling at the huge profits with a soupcon of "genuine hope" and a dash of Western triumphalism was.
The good news is they're wising up quickly. The 'Union unit' might be having a troubled inception, but its very existence is good news. It is more good news that The Scotland office is being beefed up, and senior UK pols are visiting more often. It is still more good news that the UK Government didn't fall into the trap of giving EU powers to the Scottish Government, and great news that they will start funding projects directly with councils in Scotland. For the first time in a long time, the SNP are not having everything their way. Doesn't mean minds are going to change overnight, but it does mean the groundwork is being laid.
The logic of your point does however point toward acting earlier rather than later.
The apparent difference with China is that its ambitions appear either domestic, or insofar as they are global, are economic. It doesn’t appear to want to spread either military dominance or its political ideology across the world in the same way as previous dominant powers have set out to do. You might say that they are keeping their designs secret, but history would suggest that is rather difficult and there are always clues.