The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
I do not doubt for one minute the original analysis concerning an element of the “liberal left elite” having utter contempt for people who live in areas like mine, in the north and predominantly white working class. We have seen it over a variety of issues be it brexit, voting Tory or whatever. It goes along way to explain why labour is still dislocated from many of its former working class strongholds. It’s very noticeable, especially in the online activists posts.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
One thing springs to mind - an aquaintance works in the care/protection world.
He told me, that at the time of the Rotherham revelations, there were numbers of senior people, who believed with utter sincerity that there was going to be a pogrom launched against the Muslim community. Not a few demos or spray painting insults - mobs murdering people by the hundred. There were memos flying around demanding that the Army be sent in...
What struck him was that the people involved seemed to be competing for who could hate.... *the locals* more.
SOUTH Yorkshire Police officers who ignored calls for help from the parents of a grooming victim for fear of causing racial tensions, bribed their schoolgirl daughter with shopping vouchers and failed to act after she was trafficked will not face prosecution.
An investigation by the police watchdog also revealed a chief inspector referred to the organised child abuse in Rotherham by British Pakistani men as “P*** shagging” during a conversation with the girl’s distraught dad and told him that; “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out as Rotherham would erupt."
An unnamed chief constable also admitted to the girl’s father “it had been going on for 30 years and the police could do nothing because of racial tensions”.
1. is spot on: China's ideology IS anathema, but does little to answer the question I have about aggression. Still, it's always best to keep it in mind.
3. is troubling, but again I'll go into comparisons. Various countries get involved in this kind of thing. USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia are four that spring to mind.
2. is the most interesting, but is there any threat to trade? It seems to be China is very dependent on trade. Is its projection of force objectively more worrying than that which other large powers do?
The Pacific has been a US-guaranteed pond since 1945. The US’s ideology (as Britain’s was before it) is essentially to support free and open trade.
China is the only power capable of blocking the South China Seas; and cannot be relied upon by its neighbours.
In fact, a combination of territorial claims, incursions, ideology and armament, plus rhetoric under Xi makes them very unreliable.
One (state sponsored) media outlet threatened a missile strike on Australia in response to what is, after all, just a security arrangement with the U.K./U.S.
Containment is perhaps the wrong word, but essentially the liberal democracies and their allies are now in a kind of Cold War with China - and the “frontline” is both physical and ideological.
I really am getting the most out of your posts, so thanks. The cold war aspect is the one that interests me the most. I think there's a lot more we could be doing in terms of soft power. My sense is that China is doing really rather well at that at the moment. It has a major image problem with Muslims around the world, rightly so, but then again so does the West.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
The reality hurts too much does it ?
No, it’s just deeply boring. And, as far as all the academic research suggests, just false.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Swetcorn on pizza is a far greater crime than pineapple IMHO. pineapple has a tangy, juicy quality that works quite nicely with the cheese - not something the purists will agree with but it can be quite tasty, especially if paired with something spicy. Sweetcorn on the other hand brings nothing to the table, no flavour, carb-heavy and a cloying sweetness. When I worked in a (not at all authentic) pizza restaurant the chicken and sweetcorn pizza was always popular with a certain kind of bland, forgettable, customer, too. Ham and pineapple attracted a more varied crowd.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
The problem for the U.K. in China’s CPTPP application is that some members may not be willing to appear to favour the U.K. application over China’s.
Since China’s application looks unlikely to proceed very quickly, that could leave the UK’s application in limbo.
The Japanese leadership candidates are mostly saying things like "we will have to see if China can satisfy the high standards required". I don't know what everybody thinks of the UK joining but I think it's very easy to find a justification to let the UK in but not China. If any particular country wants to avoid pissing off China they can just let another country be the bad guy, they won't be short of volunteers.
It's also worth remembering that the UK is no threat to the balance of power in the organisation. We would be the second largest economy in the bloc, but well behind Japan, and will be expected to obey the rules that have already been devised by the other members. If China gets a seat around the table it will want to dictate everything. This is also why I think that the US won't accede either: Congress will expect to rewrite the rules to its own advantage; the club will tell Congress to take a hike.
After all, we all know from the experience of our own country the endless, miserable arguments that arise when one member of the collective is vastly larger and stronger than the others.
In the respective upcoming elections in France and Australia, the effect of the spat between them will be more favourable to Scott Morrison than to Emmanuel Macron in my opinion.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Sunday is exactly the right day for this kind of incantation. As with all tenets of faith, repetition masks the inconvenient fact that it isn't well grounded in reality.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
The reality hurts too much does it ?
No, it’s just deeply boring. And, as far as all the academic research suggests, just false.
That's right, a complete denial of reality.
But who cares, the people getting the pay rises and the job opportunities will be happy with their reality.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
No-one really bothers with details anymore, everything is either brilliant or a disaster before it even begins, let alone its impacts become understood. It is just another rehash of our internal culture war, when people hear the words Australia and EU are on different sides, it triggers them, positively or negatively.
Johnson is both a reflection of that, declaring May's 600 page deal the worst deal in history ten minutes after it was published propelling him to overthrow her, and a master at exploiting our weakness in not reserving judgment until it is deserved.
1. is spot on: China's ideology IS anathema, but does little to answer the question I have about aggression. Still, it's always best to keep it in mind.
3. is troubling, but again I'll go into comparisons. Various countries get involved in this kind of thing. USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia are four that spring to mind.
2. is the most interesting, but is there any threat to trade? It seems to be China is very dependent on trade. Is its projection of force objectively more worrying than that which other large powers do?
The Pacific has been a US-guaranteed pond since 1945. The US’s ideology (as Britain’s was before it) is essentially to support free and open trade.
China is the only power capable of blocking the South China Seas; and cannot be relied upon by its neighbours.
In fact, a combination of territorial claims, incursions, ideology and armament, plus rhetoric under Xi makes them very unreliable.
One (state sponsored) media outlet threatened a missile strike on Australia in response to what is, after all, just a security arrangement with the U.K./U.S.
Containment is perhaps the wrong word, but essentially the liberal democracies and their allies are now in a kind of Cold War with China - and the “frontline” is both physical and ideological.
I really am getting the most out of your posts, so thanks. The cold war aspect is the one that interests me the most. I think there's a lot more we could be doing in terms of soft power. My sense is that China is doing really rather well at that at the moment. It has a major image problem with Muslims around the world, rightly so, but then again so does the West.
Having said all the above, it does not follow to me that countries must pick a side between China and the US.
So far, NZ has not, judging that trade with China is too valuable to risk unnecessarily. I think most of the smaller powers are in that position.
Only the US and Australia, and Japan, and now the UK are fully in the “anti-China” camp.
Even India is I think more circumspect, not willing yet to fully commit to a US-dominated alliance because of its own ambitions to “strategic autonomy”.
France can be thought of as analogous to India in that way, and may have more to lose too at taking an overtly anti-China approach. I’d need to look at India v France trade flows with respect to China.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
I do not doubt for one minute the original analysis concerning an element of the “liberal left elite” having utter contempt for people who live in areas like mine, in the north and predominantly white working class. We have seen it over a variety of issues be it brexit, voting Tory or whatever. It goes along way to explain why labour is still dislocated from many of its former working class strongholds. It’s very noticeable, especially in the online activists posts.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
One thing springs to mind - an aquaintance works in the care/protection world.
He told me, that at the time of the Rotherham revelations, there were numbers of senior people, who believed with utter sincerity that there was going to be a pogrom launched against the Muslim community. Not a few demos or spray painting insults - mobs murdering people by the hundred. There were memos flying around demanding that the Army be sent in...
What struck him was that the people involved seemed to be competing for who could hate.... *the locals* more.
SOUTH Yorkshire Police officers who ignored calls for help from the parents of a grooming victim for fear of causing racial tensions, bribed their schoolgirl daughter with shopping vouchers and failed to act after she was trafficked will not face prosecution.
An investigation by the police watchdog also revealed a chief inspector referred to the organised child abuse in Rotherham by British Pakistani men as “P*** shagging” during a conversation with the girl’s distraught dad and told him that; “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out as Rotherham would erupt."
An unnamed chief constable also admitted to the girl’s father “it had been going on for 30 years and the police could do nothing because of racial tensions”.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
Johnson's Law, PB Tory frenzied elation expands so as to fill the space empty of facts below an EU/Lib/Remoan bashing headline.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Swetcorn on pizza is a far greater crime than pineapple IMHO. pineapple has a tangy, juicy quality that works quite nicely with the cheese - not something the purists will agree with but it can be quite tasty, especially if paired with something spicy. Sweetcorn on the other hand brings nothing to the table, no flavour, carb-heavy and a cloying sweetness. When I worked in a (not at all authentic) pizza restaurant the chicken and sweetcorn pizza was always popular with a certain kind of bland, forgettable, customer, too. Ham and pineapple attracted a more varied crowd.
I agree - time for some push-back on this issue. Pineapple and cheese pair well in general of course - but on a pizza need to be accompanied with chilli pepper IMO.
Personally, I'm not a fan of meat on pizza. (Except anchovies of course (not with pineapple though).)
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
I think the situation is a bit different here because you've got a country that's making a lot of specific territorial claims at the expense of basically every country around it. This is happening because it used to be a powerful country, then got various bits lopped off it by various colonial powers, then became a powerful country again. That's left a bunch of hot territorial disputes where in most of the world territorial borders are mostly settled. There are a few cases like that with Russia (with a more recent period of supremacy, but less of a resurgence) but I don't think there are many others; The US attacks countries all over the place in pursuit of various agendas, but it's not trying to expand the US.
Not just that, but we have a determination under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that China's claim to essentially the whole caboodle cannot be justified.
Yet China occupies (or creates extensions to) islands and turns them into essentially military bases, overruling the right of other countries essentially by threat of force of arms.
One implication for example is that the Chinese airbases on the Spratly Islands bring places like Singapore within range of PAAF strike aircraft.
Even if we are US -skeptics, neither they, nor (slightly) arguably Russia, establish bases without consent.
Personally, I would see a number of the countries as places which may develop into mature & developed democracies in their own style within the next (say) half-century, and make an analogy with some of the countries of former Eastern Europe. Using the metric that a human lifetime is needed to establish and root such a culture.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
The question was about aggression in general. Dyadic vs monadic.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Swetcorn on pizza is a far greater crime than pineapple IMHO. pineapple has a tangy, juicy quality that works quite nicely with the cheese - not something the purists will agree with but it can be quite tasty, especially if paired with something spicy. Sweetcorn on the other hand brings nothing to the table, no flavour, carb-heavy and a cloying sweetness. When I worked in a (not at all authentic) pizza restaurant the chicken and sweetcorn pizza was always popular with a certain kind of bland, forgettable, customer, too. Ham and pineapple attracted a more varied crowd.
I agree - time for some push-back on this issue. Pineapple and cheese pair well in general of course - but on a pizza need to be accompanied with chilli pepper IMO.
Personally, I'm not a fan of meat on pizza. (Except anchovies of course (not with pineapple though).)
According to an Italian I worked with (grew up working in his parents pizzeria) bacon on pizza is a worse crime than pineapple.
When he said this, it provoked a torrent of abuse from another Italian we worked with.
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
Grenada? I don't think US-Haiti or US-Cuba fit particularly well, either.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
Grenada? I don't think US-Haiti or US-Cuba fit particularly well, either.
In the cases of Grenada, the government (which was already a dictatorship) was over thrown by a violent coup and the previous leader murdered. After the American invasion, a democratic government has run the place, ever since.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
My main objection is his use of the word 'retarded
It is simply unnecessary and certainly not the way to win an argument
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
Red Letter day for the Raj, is it?
Please outline the principal provisions of the AUKUS deal. Just bullet points is fine.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
I would expect conservative voters to switch off from the lib dems if they heard him this morning
Meanwhile I see it was another night of wanking off from PB Brexiters at the probably-irrelevant-in-the-bigger-scheme-of-things submarine deal, led by Sean as site wanker in chief. Yet I’d be surprised if this evident political payoff is replicated in the population of real people.
I asked a question yesterday and got no answer so I suppose nobody knows but I'll try again:
What additional obligations does the new Alliance of Awesome/Submarine Marketing Board agreement place on the UK beyond its existing (NATO and FPDA) defence and security structures?
Until that is is clear both the tories (who are giving each other one speed hand jobs with FULL EYE CONTACT over it) and the detractors (who claim its an incidental marketing exercise on a par with McDonalds Monopoly) need to reserve judgement.
I don't think it's an obligation as such, but the UK is clearly prioritising its relationship with Australia over the one with France. That has implications for the UK some diplomatic and security people think are unwise.
Australia and the US have a common interest in containing China in the Pacific region that is less obvious for the UK
That you still don’t appreciate that we have an equal interest says it all in why China is winning the Cold War they started some years ago.
Fair enough. Let me back up. The UK, unlike the US, has no strategic reason to prioritise the Australian relationship over the French one.
Australia could also have kept a better , albeit still damaged but nevertheless useful, relationship with France if Scott Morrison had handled things with more tact.
1. is spot on: China's ideology IS anathema, but does little to answer the question I have about aggression. Still, it's always best to keep it in mind.
3. is troubling, but again I'll go into comparisons. Various countries get involved in this kind of thing. USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia are four that spring to mind.
2. is the most interesting, but is there any threat to trade? It seems to be China is very dependent on trade. Is its projection of force objectively more worrying than that which other large powers do?
The Pacific has been a US-guaranteed pond since 1945. The US’s ideology (as Britain’s was before it) is essentially to support free and open trade.
China is the only power capable of blocking the South China Seas; and cannot be relied upon by its neighbours.
In fact, a combination of territorial claims, incursions, ideology and armament, plus rhetoric under Xi makes them very unreliable.
One (state sponsored) media outlet threatened a missile strike on Australia in response to what is, after all, just a security arrangement with the U.K./U.S.
Containment is perhaps the wrong word, but essentially the liberal democracies and their allies are now in a kind of Cold War with China - and the “frontline” is both physical and ideological.
I really am getting the most out of your posts, so thanks. The cold war aspect is the one that interests me the most. I think there's a lot more we could be doing in terms of soft power. My sense is that China is doing really rather well at that at the moment. It has a major image problem with Muslims around the world, rightly so, but then again so does the West.
Having said all the above, it does not follow to me that countries must pick a side between China and the US.
So far, NZ has not, judging that trade with China is too valuable to risk unnecessarily. I think most of the smaller powers are in that position.
Only the US and Australia, and Japan, and now the UK are fully in the “anti-China” camp.
Even India is I think more circumspect, not willing yet to fully commit to a US-dominated alliance because of its own ambitions to “strategic autonomy”.
France can be thought of as analogous to India in that way, and may have more to lose too at taking an overtly anti-China approach. I’d need to look at India v France trade flows with respect to China.
Has the UK taken sides? Isn't that a Chinese Govt narrative?
We are helping an ally to increase its defences.
Alternatively, do we consider it acceptable to kow-tow to the current Chinese Govt practice of using threats wrt to trade to exert pressure?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
My main objection is his use of the word 'retarded
It is simply unnecessary and certainly not the way to win an argument
But you voted Remain. You’ve only become retarded over time.
Jimmy Greaves, Englands fourth highest goalscorer, and scorer of more hat-tricks for England than anyone else, has died. 81. Must say that when I saw him at Essex Cricket a few years ago he didn't look well at all.
I remember him being asked where he'd played his best football?
"Well if you asked Chelsea supporters they'd say Chelsea and if you asked Tottenham supporters they say Tottenham and if you asked West Ham supporters they'd say Chelsea or Tottenham"
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.
Angus Reid, the only pollster other than Leger which still has the Conservatives ahead nationally on 32% to 30% for the Liberals, gives the Conservatives a clear lead in BC on 36% with the NDP second on 30% and the Liberals 3rd on just 20%.
However it also still has the Liberals ahead in Ontario on 39% to 33% for the Conservatives and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied for the lead with 31% with the Conservatives 3rd on just 19%
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
My main objection is his use of the word 'retarded
It is simply unnecessary and certainly not the way to win an argument
But you voted Remain. You’ve only become retarded over time.
I got up at four thirty this morning, and drove to do a run. 8.5 miles. Got home to find Mrs J has tweaked her back, so couldn't take the little 'un to Junior Parkrun. Another 1.25 miles. At the end of that, a friend wanted someone to run with them as training for another run. Another 3.5 miles.
Got home, to remember the little 'un has two friends coming around all afternoon for a playdate. Two seven year-olds and a four-year old, all needing entertaining and feeding.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
Basically China's geopolitical strategy is that they want to control all possible entry points to their heartland (the Yellow River & Yangtze basins - I think 70%+ of Han live there). So they invade and browbeat every other nation with overlapping interests.
The problem is that the South China Sea is a hugely strategic stretch of water for the global community and we can't let a potentially hostile power control it.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
Grenada? I don't think US-Haiti or US-Cuba fit particularly well, either.
In the cases of Grenada, the government (which was already a dictatorship) was over thrown by a violent coup and the previous leader murdered. After the American invasion, a democratic government has run the place, ever since.
I got up at four thirty this morning, and drove to do a run. 8.5 miles. Got home to find Mrs J has tweaked her back, so couldn't take the little 'un to Junior Parkrun. Another 1.25 miles. At the end of that, a friend wanted someone to run with them as training for another run. Another 3.5 miles.
Got home, to remember the little 'un has two friends coming around all afternoon for a playdate. Two seven year-olds and a four-year old, all needing entertaining and feeding.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
Russia is in no way the third most powerful military.
They may have numbers on paper, but their kit is crap and outdated.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
Grenada? I don't think US-Haiti or US-Cuba fit particularly well, either.
In the cases of Grenada, the government (which was already a dictatorship) was over thrown by a violent coup and the previous leader murdered. After the American invasion, a democratic government has run the place, ever since.
Yes, fair point.
In a ghastly echo of Northern Ireland, they are still looking for the murdered Presidents body.
A national truth-and-reconciliation commission has done some good work, though....
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
Yes, if it is little more than an arms sale or whether it commits us to maintaining forces East of the Persian Gulf is the big issue. The latter would be a big commitment financially, but also in terms of war. If a cold war turns hot, how many of the PB Jingos want to send their children or grandchildren to fight the PLA?
I got up at four thirty this morning, and drove to do a run. 8.5 miles. Got home to find Mrs J has tweaked her back, so couldn't take the little 'un to Junior Parkrun. Another 1.25 miles. At the end of that, a friend wanted someone to run with them as training for another run. Another 3.5 miles.
Got home, to remember the little 'un has two friends coming around all afternoon for a playdate. Two seven year-olds and a four-year old, all needing entertaining and feeding.
Pray for me ...
Half marathon already, then. I'd go for the big one.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
I think the Greens would recognise themselves in that lot about as much as the tories do in HYUFD
I think Dura Ace is inspired by the Bolsheviks. The Northern Scum can play the Kulaks in his revolution, probably.
He should stick to posting about military matters where he offers some insight.
This would be a dull place if we all stuck to posting about matters where we offered some insight!
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
Quite interesting on Marr this morning (yes, I'm surprised). I note:
1 - Ed Davey was the only politician wearing a tie.
2 - I had not heard of the Natalie Bird case, where a Lib Dem members and former Council Candidate has been banned from any representative role for the party whatsoever for 10 years, for afaics wearing a teeshirt with a slogan "Woman: Adult Human Female" to a meeting.
I would expect to know this, as I read Lib Dem blogs. Having previously published articles on LDV, she seems to have been banished to the Lib Dem Gulag. Neither liberal, not tolerant.
Marr skewered Davey a little on that one. Otherwise, a strong interview.
3 - Decent conversation about press stories.
4 - Decent interview with Alok Sharma.
The first Marr for a bit I would recommend watching if you missed it.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
Claiming sovereignty over both international and other neighbouring nations' territories is very different - and threatening to seize the sand with military force. Sure, Russia has also invaded others' territory - and poses a continuing danger to Europe - but China has vastly more economic resources at its disposal.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
Despite having a stricter vaccine mandate than the Biden administration, Fox continues to spread misinformation about the coronavirus. A study finding that 59 percent of Fox vaccine segments this summer included claims undercutting immunization.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
I was going to say it was all poodleism, but then I remembered the Africa sore on Humanity's Conscience conf speech. What became of that?
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.
Angus Reid, the only pollster other than Leger which still has the Conservatives ahead nationally on 32% to 30% for the Liberals, gives the Conservatives a clear lead in BC on 36% with the NDP second on 30% and the Liberals 3rd on just 20%.
However it also still has the Liberals ahead in Ontario on 39% to 33% for the Conservatives and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied for the lead with 31% with the Conservatives 3rd on just 19%
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
Rattled.
Really ? Perhaps you can answer his questions, then ?
I got up at four thirty this morning, and drove to do a run. 8.5 miles. Got home to find Mrs J has tweaked her back, so couldn't take the little 'un to Junior Parkrun. Another 1.25 miles. At the end of that, a friend wanted someone to run with them as training for another run. Another 3.5 miles.
Got home, to remember the little 'un has two friends coming around all afternoon for a playdate. Two seven year-olds and a four-year old, all needing entertaining and feeding.
Pray for me ...
Half marathon already, then. I'd go for the big one.
I think I'd prefer that to refereeing the kids ...
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.
Angus Reid, the only pollster other than Leger which still has the Conservatives ahead nationally on 32% to 30% for the Liberals, gives the Conservatives a clear lead in BC on 36% with the NDP second on 30% and the Liberals 3rd on just 20%.
However it also still has the Liberals ahead in Ontario on 39% to 33% for the Conservatives and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied for the lead with 31% with the Conservatives 3rd on just 19%
BC has a lot of seats with big majorities though, so while there might be changes in the those, it's not likely to affect many seats.
No, though the Conservatives and NDP could still pick up a few from the Liberals there.
I think my original prediction that Trudeau will win most seats overall again but not a majority but the Conservatives will win most seats in British Canada excluding Quebec looks possible if the Conservatives make gains in BC and Ontario but the Liberals still win most seats in Ontario and Quebec
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
Quite interesting on Marr this morning (yes, I'm surprised). I note:
1 - Ed Davey was the only politician wearing a tie.
2 - I had not heard of the Natalie Bird case, where a Lib Dem members and former Council Candidate has been banned from any representative role for the party whatsoever for 10 years, for afaics wearing a teeshirt with a slogan "Woman: Adult Human Female" to a meeting.
I would expect to know this, as I read Lib Dem blogs. Having previously published articles on LDV, she seems to have been banished to the Lib Dem Gulag. Neither liberal, not tolerant.
Marr skewered Davey a little on that one. Otherwise, a strong interview.
3 - Decent conversation about press stories.
4 - Decent interview with Alok Sharma.
The first Marr for a bit I would recommend watching if you missed it.
The bit I found strange was an attempt to shift the blame for the row onto the Tories - haven't they, basically, kept their heads down in the whole TERF thing?
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
1970s USA was not a mature democracy ? You could add both Iran and the Congo from earlier decades to that example, of course.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
Grenada? I don't think US-Haiti or US-Cuba fit particularly well, either.
Grenada followed a coup so arguably it wasn't a direct attack on a democracy. Mosadeq, removed from office by a UK/US coup in Iran, was democratically elected I think - he certainly had more legitimacy than his replacement. I don't think it pays to get too sentimental about the inherent goodness of democratic countries when it comes to international affairs. Democracy can make governments wary of doing anything too daft, but didn't prevent notable fuck ups in Iraq or Suez. The problem is countries that have an imperialist, expansionist mindset and think they have a business projecting power beyond their own borders, or have a different idea to their neighbours about where those borders should lie. China may be becoming more problematic as it rises to be the world's top economic power, but arguably still has a far less aggressively imperialistic mindset than the US. The problem is that the US is the established power and most of the world has made peace with its hegemony (which by historical standards has also been relatively benign) whereas China is a rising power whose assertion of its strength is causing disruption to the existing order, and whose motivations are something of an unknown quality, especially under Xi (who is clearly a wrong 'un). They are not an obviously aggressive new power like the Kaiser's Germany of interwar Japan, though, and nor are they occupying their neighbours like the Soviet Union (except Tibet I guess, but that's not new). So I do not find the rise of China an especially alarming development, especially from the point of view of Europe, on the other side of the world. Indeed, China's rise has led to the greatest reduction in poverty in human history, and so I'm not really convinced we should be against it. Of course I'd rather they were a democracy, but I don't think it's my business to tell other countries how to run their affairs. Perhaps if the democratic countries did more to improve the conditions of their own people, we would be seen as a model to emulate?
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
The issue is creating waves in all the non-Tory parties - it's the reason the current Green leadership has stood down. Starmer has very little patience for the full "self-identified trans=women, get over it" stance and if pushed will explicitly reject it, but he correctly thinks it's not an issue that most people want him to focus on. I think the Tories will struggle to make it a salient anti-LD issue in an election, though, unless Davey chooses to major on it.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
Why on earth should there be seat losses to the SNP? The Tories have been winning council seats from the SNP in Scotland. In addition there will be 7 fewer Scottish seats after the boundary changes. It really is time the remoaners on this site realise they lost in 2016 and we have left the EU for good. If Boris won the next election with a majority of 100, most of you would be trying to find a way to dismiss it as a disaster for him. The LobDems might win the odd council by-election and may even win some of the new Westminster seats after the boundary changes but they stabbed their most successful leader, Charles Kennedy in the back and they have kept going backwards ever since. I said 2 years ago Starmer would bore the working class and so it is proving to be.
Sadly, it's entirely possible that the Scottish Conservatives are completely wiped out in 2024. All the polls point to the SNP being up quite a bit from 2019. And the Conservative seats - even after boundary changes - aren't likely to be particularly safe.
My guess, FWIW, is that the Conservatives drop to just a single borders seat.
(Also: are you accounting for the fact that Scottish local elections are STV?)
I doubt that myself and expect the Tories to hold on to a few seats. Some labour gains there are likely too if polls are showing a neck and neck GB race similar to what we see now. I cannot see the SNP beating its 2021 Holyrood vote share - indeed more likely to underperform .
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The issue is that as @NickPalmer points out below - it's an issue / policy area where as a political party you just can't win. All parties are desperately avoiding picking a side as that will upset potential voters.
At the moment, the more customers the energy companies have, the more unprofitable they are. That ain’t sustainable.
Looks to me like Kwarteng is going to have to do one of three things;
1 ditch the price cap altogether. 2 raise it significantly, very soon. 3 bung govt cash to the existing suppliers or, after they go bust, incentivise other suppliers with taxpayers cash to take on these customers.
The strategic error of France would be to think that the other European Union [members] will align with us at the expense of United States . It is to overestimate our influence and our attractiveness ...
France should have long understood the doubts and uncertainties of others [in the] European Union
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
Looks as if Macron is in a real crisis with nowhere to go
The French elections could be interesting
Any chance for Barnier
I'd say that Macron needs to rebuild his strategy for the EU in his Presidency, so that he makes real progress on the EU Security whatever-it-will-be. That's an agenda that he will get support from some unusual corners if he plays it as an EU-benefit rather than a new France-the-brains controlling Germany-the-brawn fantasy.
There are also many areas where Brussels is a disaster, but his problem is that France has usually pursued the lines that have made it a disaster.
Could he also help fix the NI Protocol, and rebuild an eirenic relationship with UK? (He said optimistically).
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.
Angus Reid, the only pollster other than Leger which still has the Conservatives ahead nationally on 32% to 30% for the Liberals, gives the Conservatives a clear lead in BC on 36% with the NDP second on 30% and the Liberals 3rd on just 20%.
However it also still has the Liberals ahead in Ontario on 39% to 33% for the Conservatives and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied for the lead with 31% with the Conservatives 3rd on just 19%
BC has a lot of seats with big majorities though, so while there might be changes in the those, it's not likely to affect many seats.
Possibly although there could still could be a few interesting results such as West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast- Sea to Sky Country where the NDP are in 4th but they have a high profile candidate and the Greens are collapsing so it is effectively a 4 way marginal.
Well, I've been away for the best part of a week, hiding from PB. Trying to catch up, but just too many threads and posts. It looks like I've missed much, but maybe not. A few questions:
a) Are we at war with i) France, ii) China, or iii) both? Which do we hate the most, and why? b) Is Australia really so rich that it can afford to spend vast amounts on some submarines? c) Has history been rewritten so that the USA is now a benign superpower spreading democracy, that would never dream of interfering in other countries' affairs by, for example, invading and killing lots of people? d) The appointment of Nadine Dorries to Culture is a joke, right?
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
Russia is in no way the third most powerful military.
They may have numbers on paper, but their kit is crap and outdated.
But they’re willing to use it And they’re extremely active in cyber-warfare and, you know, poisoning people on U.K. soil.
But one of the ways Brexiters attempt to untangle their cognitive dissonance is to maintain that Russia is no longer a threat.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
The issue is creating waves in all the non-Tory parties - it's the reason the current Green leadership has stood down. Starmer has very little patience for the full "self-identified trans=women, get over it" stance and if pushed will explicitly reject it, but he correctly thinks it's not an issue that most people want him to focus on. I think the Tories will struggle to make it a salient anti-LD issue in an election, though, unless Davey chooses to major on it.
They don't have to do anything, though, and I don't think the militants will allow non-majoring on it.
It really is the purest example of Bigendian v Littleendian, in the pre-coding sense.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
For a very much given value of ‘democratically elected’ given the huge amounts of fraud both sides committed in 1970.
Why on earth should there be seat losses to the SNP? The Tories have been winning council seats from the SNP in Scotland. In addition there will be 7 fewer Scottish seats after the boundary changes. It really is time the remoaners on this site realise they lost in 2016 and we have left the EU for good. If Boris won the next election with a majority of 100, most of you would be trying to find a way to dismiss it as a disaster for him. The LobDems might win the odd council by-election and may even win some of the new Westminster seats after the boundary changes but they stabbed their most successful leader, Charles Kennedy in the back and they have kept going backwards ever since. I said 2 years ago Starmer would bore the working class and so it is proving to be.
Sadly, it's entirely possible that the Scottish Conservatives are completely wiped out in 2024. All the polls point to the SNP being up quite a bit from 2019. And the Conservative seats - even after boundary changes - aren't likely to be particularly safe.
My guess, FWIW, is that the Conservatives drop to just a single borders seat.
(Also: are you accounting for the fact that Scottish local elections are STV?)
I doubt that myself and expect the Tories to hold on to a few seats. Some labour gains there are likely too if polls are showing a neck and neck GB race similar to what we see now. I cannot see the SNP beating its 2021 Holyrood vote share - indeed more likely to underperform .
I expect the Conservatives will hold Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweedale and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk regardless. However if the SNP do gain the other 4 remaining Tory Scottish seats on current polls that could make the difference between a Conservative minority government propped up by the DUP and a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP and LDs.
Remember in 2017 it was the 13 seats the Tories won in Scotland that ensured May had enough seats to form a minority government with DUP confidence and supply
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Yeah the Labour Party hates working class northern women who didn't go to university so much that they (checks notes) elected one as deputy leader.
Lol - but the only mainstream party yet to have a women leader.....
Yes but that has nothing to do with changes “post-Brexit” nor with attitudes toward the working class. Your analysis is all over the place this morning.
Wasn't Margaret Beckett Acting Leader for a short while?
Technically no, because there is no post of Acting Leader in Labour. So Beckett and later Harman (twice) were leaders of the party and female.
However, since they were only leaders pending the calling of a special conference to elect a new leader, and were not automatically on the ballot for the election unlike an incumbent leader,* they are not usually included on the list.
*Although Beckett was nominated and did stand in 1994, coming third.
History will not remember Beckett for her own leadership, but for lending Corbyn her vote for his nomination - enabling that once he was on the ballot, he did became leader.
Harman as Acting Leader is much more to be condemned than Beckett. By her actions - getting the Shadow Cabinet to abstain on Osborne's proposed welfare reforms - she generated the momentum which took Corbyn to victory in the 2015 contest.
Well, I've been away for the best part of a week, hiding from PB. Trying to catch up, but just too many threads and posts. It looks like I've missed much, but maybe not. A few questions:
a) Are we at war with i) France, ii) China, or iii) both? Which do we hate the most, and why? b) Is Australia really so rich that it can afford to spend vast amounts on some submarines? c) Has history been rewritten so that the USA is now a benign superpower spreading democracy, that would never dream of interfering in other countries' affairs by, for example, invading and killing lots of people? d) The appointment of Nadine Dorries to Culture is a joke, right?
Have I missed anything else?
Is the USA a superpower at all? The Defence Sec said it wasn't, less than 3 weeks back.
Well, I've been away for the best part of a week, hiding from PB. Trying to catch up, but just too many threads and posts. It looks like I've missed much, but maybe not. A few questions:
a) Are we at war with i) France, ii) China, or iii) both? Which do we hate the most, and why? b) Is Australia really so rich that it can afford to spend vast amounts on some submarines? c) Has history been rewritten so that the USA is now a benign superpower spreading democracy, that would never dream of interfering in other countries' affairs by, for example, invading and killing lots of people? d) The appointment of Nadine Dorries to Culture is a joke, right?
Have I missed anything else?
a) War with France is traditional. We have had a couple of minor arguments with the Germans, but that is all in the past now. b) Yes - https://data.worldbank.org/share/widget?indicators=NY.GDP.MKTP.KD&locations=AU c) Your mileage may vary d) Epic trolling of the cultural community. Nearly as good as the suggestion to appoint Damien Greene as Home Sec. to troll the police.
At the moment, the more customers the energy companies have, the more unprofitable they are. That ain’t sustainable.
Looks to me like Kwarteng is going to have to do one of three things;
1 ditch the price cap altogether. 2 raise it significantly, very soon. 3 bung govt cash to the existing suppliers or, after they go bust, incentivise other suppliers with taxpayers cash to take on these customers.
It's an interesting one
At a lower level of intervention he could guarantee the credit of smaller suppliers, make loans available (whether this would have a calming effect or make it like 1992(?) is perhaps up for grabs, or facilitate takeovers).
He could also support players in return for them accepting a levy later to pay it back. We already have a green levy on just the large companies to pay for the free and subsidised green measures such as insulation and boilers available under the ECO scheme, so smaller companies could perhapss quid-pro-quo by joining that. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-cavity-loft-insulation/
Quite interesting on Marr this morning (yes, I'm surprised). I note:
1 - Ed Davey was the only politician wearing a tie.
2 - I had not heard of the Natalie Bird case, where a Lib Dem members and former Council Candidate has been banned from any representative role for the party whatsoever for 10 years, for afaics wearing a teeshirt with a slogan "Woman: Adult Human Female" to a meeting.
I would expect to know this, as I read Lib Dem blogs. Having previously published articles on LDV, she seems to have been banished to the Lib Dem Gulag. Neither liberal, not tolerant.
Marr skewered Davey a little on that one. Otherwise, a strong interview.
3 - Decent conversation about press stories.
4 - Decent interview with Alok Sharma.
The first Marr for a bit I would recommend watching if you missed it.
The bit I found strange was an attempt to shift the blame for the row onto the Tories - haven't they, basically, kept their heads down in the whole TERF thing?
Found a bit in Women's Views of the News, quoting 'Campaigns in Politics, from Nov 18, 2019', which seems reasonable to me. In particular, they say 'we believe that important distinctions must be made between natal women, fully transitioned Transwomen and those who identify as Transgender yet have no wish to undertake physical or hormonal changes.'
My suspicious nature leads me to fear that there might well be some nasty barstewards about, who would lie, with the ultimate aim of self-gratification.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
That is today and irrelevant in a fast changing political environment
To do so he would have to win back a lot of votes the French centre right has lost to Le Pen on the far right to even get to the runoff with Macron, that is probably why he is tacking to the nationalist right
Quite interesting on Marr this morning (yes, I'm surprised). I note:
1 - Ed Davey was the only politician wearing a tie.
2 - I had not heard of the Natalie Bird case, where a Lib Dem members and former Council Candidate has been banned from any representative role for the party whatsoever for 10 years, for afaics wearing a teeshirt with a slogan "Woman: Adult Human Female" to a meeting.
I would expect to know this, as I read Lib Dem blogs. Having previously published articles on LDV, she seems to have been banished to the Lib Dem Gulag. Neither liberal, not tolerant.
Marr skewered Davey a little on that one. Otherwise, a strong interview.
3 - Decent conversation about press stories.
4 - Decent interview with Alok Sharma.
The first Marr for a bit I would recommend watching if you missed it.
The bit I found strange was an attempt to shift the blame for the row onto the Tories - haven't they, basically, kept their heads down in the whole TERF thing?
It was silly to try to blame Boris for their trans rights difficulties
Boris can be blamed for many things but not this
I have been receptive to the lib dems recently but the trans controversy has ended that and my wife is really angry about the issue and the fear women are experiencing
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
Hear, hear. It's such a shame - one knows that Davey doesn't believe this stuff either. A powerful chunk of LibDems are pulling the party away from liberalism. Davey needs to stop the rot, especially given the need to capture disaffected conservative Party voters.
Quite interesting on Marr this morning (yes, I'm surprised). I note:
1 - Ed Davey was the only politician wearing a tie.
2 - I had not heard of the Natalie Bird case, where a Lib Dem members and former Council Candidate has been banned from any representative role for the party whatsoever for 10 years, for afaics wearing a teeshirt with a slogan "Woman: Adult Human Female" to a meeting.
I would expect to know this, as I read Lib Dem blogs. Having previously published articles on LDV, she seems to have been banished to the Lib Dem Gulag. Neither liberal, not tolerant.
Marr skewered Davey a little on that one. Otherwise, a strong interview.
3 - Decent conversation about press stories.
4 - Decent interview with Alok Sharma.
The first Marr for a bit I would recommend watching if you missed it.
The bit I found strange was an attempt to shift the blame for the row onto the Tories - haven't they, basically, kept their heads down in the whole TERF thing?
It was silly to try to blame Boris for their trans rights difficulties
Boris can be blamed for many things but not this
I have been receptive to the lib dems recently but the trans controversy has ended that and my wife is really angry about the issue and the fear women are experiencing
It seemed he was trying to sell some kind of its-because-of-the-culture-war multiplied by they-should-take-a-position-on-it thing.
It is worth noting that the actual actions of the UK government have been accommodating to the trans community, to the point of setting off the other side in this.
Why on earth should there be seat losses to the SNP? The Tories have been winning council seats from the SNP in Scotland. In addition there will be 7 fewer Scottish seats after the boundary changes. It really is time the remoaners on this site realise they lost in 2016 and we have left the EU for good. If Boris won the next election with a majority of 100, most of you would be trying to find a way to dismiss it as a disaster for him. The LobDems might win the odd council by-election and may even win some of the new Westminster seats after the boundary changes but they stabbed their most successful leader, Charles Kennedy in the back and they have kept going backwards ever since. I said 2 years ago Starmer would bore the working class and so it is proving to be.
Sadly, it's entirely possible that the Scottish Conservatives are completely wiped out in 2024. All the polls point to the SNP being up quite a bit from 2019. And the Conservative seats - even after boundary changes - aren't likely to be particularly safe.
My guess, FWIW, is that the Conservatives drop to just a single borders seat.
(Also: are you accounting for the fact that Scottish local elections are STV?)
I doubt that myself and expect the Tories to hold on to a few seats. Some labour gains there are likely too if polls are showing a neck and neck GB race similar to what we see now. I cannot see the SNP beating its 2021 Holyrood vote share - indeed more likely to underperform .
I expect the Conservatives will hold Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweedale and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk regardless. However if the SNP do gain the other 4 remaining Tory Scottish seats on current polls that could make the difference between a Conservative minority government propped up by the DUP and a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP and LDs.
Remember in 2017 it was the 13 seats the Tories won in Scotland that ensured May had enough seats to form a minority government with DUP confidence and supply
I find your apparent expectation that the DUP will shore up the Tories amusing. Particularly if the latter are still led by Johnson who I suspect is regarded as both dishonest and a Catholic.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
Russia is in no way the third most powerful military.
They may have numbers on paper, but their kit is crap and outdated.
But they’re willing to use it And they’re extremely active in cyber-warfare and, you know, poisoning people on U.K. soil.
But one of the ways Brexiters attempt to untangle their cognitive dissonance is to maintain that Russia is no longer a threat.
If your tactic is to weaken your rivals by trolling, throwing mud and so on, you can cause a lot of trouble with very little strength.
It's odd to see an entire country do it as the entirety of their national strategy, but it's a logical thing for Russia to be doing.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
Hear, hear. It's such a shame - one knows that Davey doesn't believe this stuff either. A powerful chunk of LibDems are pulling the party away from liberalism. Davey needs to stop the rot, especially given the need to capture disaffected conservative Party voters.
I can imagine a fair number of existing LD voters are none too keen either.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
Looks as if Macron is in a real crisis with nowhere to go
The French elections could be interesting
Any chance for Barnier
I'd say that Macron needs to rebuild his strategy for the EU in his Presidency, so that he makes real progress on the EU Security whatever-it-will-be. That's an agenda that he will get support from some unusual corners if he plays it as an EU-benefit rather than a new France-the-brains controlling Germany-the-brawn fantasy.
There are also many areas where Brussels is a disaster, but his problem is that France has usually pursued the lines that have made it a disaster.
Could he also help fix the NI Protocol, and rebuild an eirenic relationship with UK? (He said optimistically).
Rutte was at Downing Street on Friday seeking a defence and security agreement with the UK and to be honest, this is the time for both sides to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement on defence and security but also resolve the issues on the protocol and other matters and bury the ill feelings
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
The issue is creating waves in all the non-Tory parties - it's the reason the current Green leadership has stood down. Starmer has very little patience for the full "self-identified trans=women, get over it" stance and if pushed will explicitly reject it, but he correctly thinks it's not an issue that most people want him to focus on. I think the Tories will struggle to make it a salient anti-LD issue in an election, though, unless Davey chooses to major on it.
I agree with all that. But if the rumours about Rosie Duffield not attending the LP Conference out of fear are true, I do think Starmer should deal with this explicitly and publicly. He can do this without giving a view on the substantive issue. He simply needs to say that the LP is a broad church, people are entitled to have civil disagreements, but he simply will not tolerate intimidation of party members or MPs over this, or any other, issue.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
Hear, hear. It's such a shame - one knows that Davey doesn't believe this stuff either. A powerful chunk of LibDems are pulling the party away from liberalism. Davey needs to stop the rot, especially given the need to capture disaffected conservative Party voters.
I can imagine a fair number of existing LD voters are none too keen either.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
Russia is in no way the third most powerful military.
They may have numbers on paper, but their kit is crap and outdated.
But they’re willing to use it And they’re extremely active in cyber-warfare and, you know, poisoning people on U.K. soil.
But one of the ways Brexiters attempt to untangle their cognitive dissonance is to maintain that Russia is no longer a threat.
Yep, if a willingness to kill people and have your own people killed is a military superpower..er..superpower, Russia is still PL while the UK is barely Championship. On the whole I think that's preferable for a middle rank country, but some folk are just itching to get in at the sharp end (as long as it's other folk feeling that sharp end naturlich).
The strategic error of France would be to think that the other European Union [members] will align with us at the expense of United States . It is to overestimate our influence and our attractiveness ...
France should have long understood the doubts and uncertainties of others [in the] European Union
Yes, this is a major miscalculation and going in so hard on the betrayal rhetoric isn't helping them. Lots of Eastern European nations are looking shiftily at their own border worrying about France pushing the US (and UK) away from its long standing commitment to NATO and the defence of Europe.
The UK and France together have got just about enough teeth to keep Putin at bay without US involvement. If the UK decides it isn't interested in protecting the eastern border of Europe that would be a pretty worrying development for the continent.
I hope that the French calm down over the next few days because pushing the US and UK away is a poor idea.
Quite interesting on Marr this morning (yes, I'm surprised). I note:
1 - Ed Davey was the only politician wearing a tie.
2 - I had not heard of the Natalie Bird case, where a Lib Dem members and former Council Candidate has been banned from any representative role for the party whatsoever for 10 years, for afaics wearing a teeshirt with a slogan "Woman: Adult Human Female" to a meeting.
I would expect to know this, as I read Lib Dem blogs. Having previously published articles on LDV, she seems to have been banished to the Lib Dem Gulag. Neither liberal, not tolerant.
Marr skewered Davey a little on that one. Otherwise, a strong interview.
3 - Decent conversation about press stories.
4 - Decent interview with Alok Sharma.
The first Marr for a bit I would recommend watching if you missed it.
The bit I found strange was an attempt to shift the blame for the row onto the Tories - haven't they, basically, kept their heads down in the whole TERF thing?
It was silly to try to blame Boris for their trans rights difficulties
Boris can be blamed for many things but not this
I have been receptive to the lib dems recently but the trans controversy has ended that and my wife is really angry about the issue and the fear women are experiencing
Good to see him being strong on vax passports. A stupid and unworkable idea that is really a front for a national digital id.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
Russia is in no way the third most powerful military.
They may have numbers on paper, but their kit is crap and outdated.
But they’re willing to use it And they’re extremely active in cyber-warfare and, you know, poisoning people on U.K. soil.
But one of the ways Brexiters attempt to untangle their cognitive dissonance is to maintain that Russia is no longer a threat.
Oh, I completely agree with your post. They are very dangerous and aggressive.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
The issue is creating waves in all the non-Tory parties - it's the reason the current Green leadership has stood down. Starmer has very little patience for the full "self-identified trans=women, get over it" stance and if pushed will explicitly reject it, but he correctly thinks it's not an issue that most people want him to focus on. I think the Tories will struggle to make it a salient anti-LD issue in an election, though, unless Davey chooses to major on it.
I agree with all that. But if the rumours about Rosie Duffield not attending the LP Conference out of fear are true, I do think Starmer should deal with this explicitly and publicly. He can do this without giving a view on the substantive issue. He simply needs to say that the LP is a broad church, people are entitled to have civil disagreements, but he simply will not tolerate intimidation of party members or MPs over this, or any other, issue.
This is where I came in earlier. He has form on not facing up to extremists in the party. He sat in Corbyn's shadow cabinet mute on anti-semitism while both male and female Jewish MPs were subjected to appalling treatment. To quote from a party leader where women do rise to the top - 'he's frit'!
Why on earth should there be seat losses to the SNP? The Tories have been winning council seats from the SNP in Scotland. In addition there will be 7 fewer Scottish seats after the boundary changes. It really is time the remoaners on this site realise they lost in 2016 and we have left the EU for good. If Boris won the next election with a majority of 100, most of you would be trying to find a way to dismiss it as a disaster for him. The LobDems might win the odd council by-election and may even win some of the new Westminster seats after the boundary changes but they stabbed their most successful leader, Charles Kennedy in the back and they have kept going backwards ever since. I said 2 years ago Starmer would bore the working class and so it is proving to be.
Sadly, it's entirely possible that the Scottish Conservatives are completely wiped out in 2024. All the polls point to the SNP being up quite a bit from 2019. And the Conservative seats - even after boundary changes - aren't likely to be particularly safe.
My guess, FWIW, is that the Conservatives drop to just a single borders seat.
(Also: are you accounting for the fact that Scottish local elections are STV?)
I doubt that myself and expect the Tories to hold on to a few seats. Some labour gains there are likely too if polls are showing a neck and neck GB race similar to what we see now. I cannot see the SNP beating its 2021 Holyrood vote share - indeed more likely to underperform .
I expect the Conservatives will hold Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweedale and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk regardless. However if the SNP do gain the other 4 remaining Tory Scottish seats on current polls that could make the difference between a Conservative minority government propped up by the DUP and a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP and LDs.
Remember in 2017 it was the 13 seats the Tories won in Scotland that ensured May had enough seats to form a minority government with DUP confidence and supply
I find your apparent expectation that the DUP will shore up the Tories amusing. Particularly if the latter are still led by Johnson who I suspect is regarded as both dishonest and a Catholic.
I advocated last week offering the DUP a cut in the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as a carrot alongside the extra dosh for NI that would be required for DUP or TUV confidence and supply while Lord Frost continues to work on trying to remove the Irish Sea border.
It is also possible on current polls the UUP could pick up 1 or 2 seats like Fermanagh and South Tyrone and South Antrim and the UUP are the Tories sister party in NI
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
The issue is creating waves in all the non-Tory parties - it's the reason the current Green leadership has stood down. Starmer has very little patience for the full "self-identified trans=women, get over it" stance and if pushed will explicitly reject it, but he correctly thinks it's not an issue that most people want him to focus on. I think the Tories will struggle to make it a salient anti-LD issue in an election, though, unless Davey chooses to major on it.
I agree with all that. But if the rumours about Rosie Duffield not attending the LP Conference out of fear are true, I do think Starmer should deal with this explicitly and publicly. He can do this without giving a view on the substantive issue. He simply needs to say that the LP is a broad church, people are entitled to have civil disagreements, but he simply will not tolerate intimidation of party members or MPs over this, or any other, issue.
They are true, even to the point that the Speaker of the HOC intervened yesterday in outright condemnation
Comments
An investigation by the police watchdog also revealed a chief inspector referred to the organised child abuse in Rotherham by British Pakistani men as “P*** shagging” during a conversation with the girl’s distraught dad and told him that; “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out as Rotherham would erupt."
An unnamed chief constable also admitted to the girl’s father “it had been going on for 30 years and the police could do nothing because of racial tensions”.
https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,police-knew-about-rotherham-cse-but-will-not-be-prosecuted-report_34843.htm
The investigation into the South Yorkshire plods has still not been completed after over seven years.
The cold war aspect is the one that interests me the most. I think there's a lot more we could be doing in terms of soft power. My sense is that China is doing really rather well at that at the moment. It has a major image problem with Muslims around the world, rightly so, but then again so does the West.
And, as far as all the academic research suggests, just false.
After all, we all know from the experience of our own country the endless, miserable arguments that arise when one member of the collective is vastly larger and stronger than the others.
But who cares, the people getting the pay rises and the job opportunities will be happy with their reality.
Johnson is both a reflection of that, declaring May's 600 page deal the worst deal in history ten minutes after it was published propelling him to overthrow her, and a master at exploiting our weakness in not reserving judgment until it is deserved.
So far, NZ has not, judging that trade with China is too valuable to risk unnecessarily. I think most of the smaller powers are in that position.
Only the US and Australia, and Japan, and now the UK are fully in the “anti-China” camp.
Even India is I think more circumspect, not willing yet to fully commit to a US-dominated alliance because of its own ambitions to “strategic autonomy”.
France can be thought of as analogous to India in that way, and may have more to lose too at taking an overtly anti-China approach. I’d need to look at India v France trade flows with respect to China.
Which is why, when I met the Home Sec. at a garden party, I suggested placing the officials involved on the Sex Offenders register.
Personally, I'm not a fan of meat on pizza. (Except anchovies of course (not with pineapple though).)
Yet China occupies (or creates extensions to) islands and turns them into essentially military bases, overruling the right of other countries essentially by threat of force of arms.
One implication for example is that the Chinese airbases on the Spratly Islands bring places like Singapore within range of PAAF strike aircraft.
Even if we are US -skeptics, neither they, nor (slightly) arguably Russia, establish bases without consent.
Personally, I would see a number of the countries as places which may develop into mature & developed democracies in their own style within the next (say) half-century, and make an analogy with some of the countries of former Eastern Europe. Using the metric that a human lifetime is needed to establish and root such a culture.
When he said this, it provoked a torrent of abuse from another Italian we worked with.
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.
It is simply unnecessary and certainly not the way to win an argument
Please outline the principal provisions of the AUKUS deal. Just bullet points is fine.
Australia could also have kept a better , albeit still damaged but nevertheless useful, relationship with France if Scott Morrison had handled things with more tact.
We are helping an ally to increase its defences.
Alternatively, do we consider it acceptable to kow-tow to the current Chinese Govt practice of using threats wrt to trade to exert pressure?
You’ve only become retarded over time.
Others seem to have been born that way.
"Well if you asked Chelsea supporters they'd say Chelsea and if you asked Tottenham supporters they say Tottenham and if you asked West Ham supporters they'd say Chelsea or Tottenham"
However it also still has the Liberals ahead in Ontario on 39% to 33% for the Conservatives and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied for the lead with 31% with the Conservatives 3rd on just 19%
https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021.09.18_federal_final.pdf
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
I got up at four thirty this morning, and drove to do a run. 8.5 miles.
Got home to find Mrs J has tweaked her back, so couldn't take the little 'un to Junior Parkrun. Another 1.25 miles.
At the end of that, a friend wanted someone to run with them as training for another run. Another 3.5 miles.
Got home, to remember the little 'un has two friends coming around all afternoon for a playdate. Two seven year-olds and a four-year old, all needing entertaining and feeding.
Pray for me ...
Invasion of Tibet
Recent military engagement with India https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-india-move-tens-of-thousands-of-troops-to-the-border-in-largest-buildup-in-decades-11625218201
Conflict over the Spratley Islands https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
Conflict with Japan over Senkaku https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/tensions-east-china-sea
That's just off the top of my head.
Basically China's geopolitical strategy is that they want to control all possible entry points to their heartland (the Yellow River & Yangtze basins - I think 70%+ of Han live there). So they invade and browbeat every other nation with overlapping interests.
The problem is that the South China Sea is a hugely strategic stretch of water for the global community and we can't let a potentially hostile power control it.
They may have numbers on paper, but their kit is crap and outdated.
A national truth-and-reconciliation commission has done some good work, though....
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
1 - Ed Davey was the only politician wearing a tie.
2 - I had not heard of the Natalie Bird case, where a Lib Dem members and former Council Candidate has been banned from any representative role for the party whatsoever for 10 years, for afaics wearing a teeshirt with a slogan "Woman: Adult Human Female" to a meeting.
I would expect to know this, as I read Lib Dem blogs. Having previously published articles on LDV, she seems to have been banished to the Lib Dem Gulag. Neither liberal, not tolerant.
Marr skewered Davey a little on that one. Otherwise, a strong interview.
3 - Decent conversation about press stories.
4 - Decent interview with Alok Sharma.
The first Marr for a bit I would recommend watching if you missed it.
Sure, Russia has also invaded others' territory - and poses a continuing danger to Europe - but China has vastly more economic resources at its disposal.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
https://twitter.com/tobyvogel/status/1439502747376758789?s=21
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/how-fox-pushes-covid-misinformation-while-privately-vaccinating-its-employees-121061957601?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
Perhaps you can answer his questions, then ?
I think my original prediction that Trudeau will win most seats overall again but not a majority but the Conservatives will win most seats in British Canada excluding Quebec looks possible if the Conservatives make gains in BC and Ontario but the Liberals still win most seats in Ontario and Quebec
The French elections could be interesting
Any chance for Barnier
You could add both Iran and the Congo from earlier decades to that example, of course.
I don't think it pays to get too sentimental about the inherent goodness of democratic countries when it comes to international affairs. Democracy can make governments wary of doing anything too daft, but didn't prevent notable fuck ups in Iraq or Suez.
The problem is countries that have an imperialist, expansionist mindset and think they have a business projecting power beyond their own borders, or have a different idea to their neighbours about where those borders should lie. China may be becoming more problematic as it rises to be the world's top economic power, but arguably still has a far less aggressively imperialistic mindset than the US. The problem is that the US is the established power and most of the world has made peace with its hegemony (which by historical standards has also been relatively benign) whereas China is a rising power whose assertion of its strength is causing disruption to the existing order, and whose motivations are something of an unknown quality, especially under Xi (who is clearly a wrong 'un).
They are not an obviously aggressive new power like the Kaiser's Germany of interwar Japan, though, and nor are they occupying their neighbours like the Soviet Union (except Tibet I guess, but that's not new). So I do not find the rise of China an especially alarming development, especially from the point of view of Europe, on the other side of the world. Indeed, China's rise has led to the greatest reduction in poverty in human history, and so I'm not really convinced we should be against it.
Of course I'd rather they were a democracy, but I don't think it's my business to tell other countries how to run their affairs. Perhaps if the democratic countries did more to improve the conditions of their own people, we would be seen as a model to emulate?
http://harris-interactive.fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/09/Rapport_Harris_-_Vague_12_Intentions_de_vote_Presidentielle_2022_Challenges.pdf
At the moment, the more customers the energy companies have, the more unprofitable they are. That ain’t sustainable.
Looks to me like Kwarteng is going to have to do one of three things;
1 ditch the price cap altogether.
2 raise it significantly, very soon.
3 bung govt cash to the existing suppliers or, after they go bust, incentivise other suppliers with taxpayers cash to take on these customers.
France should have long understood the doubts and uncertainties of others [in the] European Union
https://twitter.com/AntoineBondaz/status/1439538747905871873?s=20
There are also many areas where Brussels is a disaster, but his problem is that France has usually pursued the lines that have made it a disaster.
Could he also help fix the NI Protocol, and rebuild an eirenic relationship with UK? (He said optimistically).
a) Are we at war with i) France, ii) China, or iii) both? Which do we hate the most, and why?
b) Is Australia really so rich that it can afford to spend vast amounts on some submarines?
c) Has history been rewritten so that the USA is now a benign superpower spreading democracy, that would never dream of interfering in other countries' affairs by, for example, invading and killing lots of people?
d) The appointment of Nadine Dorries to Culture is a joke, right?
Have I missed anything else?
And they’re extremely active in cyber-warfare and, you know, poisoning people on U.K. soil.
But one of the ways Brexiters attempt to untangle their cognitive dissonance is to maintain that Russia is no longer a threat.
It really is the purest example of Bigendian v Littleendian, in the pre-coding sense.
Remember in 2017 it was the 13 seats the Tories won in Scotland that ensured May had enough seats to form a minority government with DUP confidence and supply
b) Yes - https://data.worldbank.org/share/widget?indicators=NY.GDP.MKTP.KD&locations=AU
c) Your mileage may vary
d) Epic trolling of the cultural community. Nearly as good as the suggestion to appoint Damien Greene as Home Sec. to troll the police.
At a lower level of intervention he could guarantee the credit of smaller suppliers, make loans available (whether this would have a calming effect or make it like 1992(?) is perhaps up for grabs, or facilitate takeovers).
He could also support players in return for them accepting a levy later to pay it back. We already have a green levy on just the large companies to pay for the free and subsidised green measures such as insulation and boilers available under the ECO scheme, so smaller companies could perhapss quid-pro-quo by joining that.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-cavity-loft-insulation/
In particular, they say 'we believe that important distinctions must be made between natal women, fully transitioned Transwomen and those who identify as Transgender yet have no wish to undertake physical or hormonal changes.'
My suspicious nature leads me to fear that there might well be some nasty barstewards about, who would lie, with the ultimate aim of self-gratification.
Boris can be blamed for many things but not this
I have been receptive to the lib dems recently but the trans controversy has ended that and my wife is really angry about the issue and the fear women are experiencing
It is worth noting that the actual actions of the UK government have been accommodating to the trans community, to the point of setting off the other side in this.
It's odd to see an entire country do it as the entirety of their national strategy, but it's a logical thing for Russia to be doing.
The UK and France together have got just about enough teeth to keep Putin at bay without US involvement. If the UK decides it isn't interested in protecting the eastern border of Europe that would be a pretty worrying development for the continent.
I hope that the French calm down over the next few days because pushing the US and UK away is a poor idea.
But not the third most powerful military
It is also possible on current polls the UUP could pick up 1 or 2 seats like Fermanagh and South Tyrone and South Antrim and the UUP are the Tories sister party in NI