Pulpstar said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.

Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.

I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.

The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.

Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.

I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.

What has Trump said about Ukraine?

Peace on Day One.

Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.

What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.

As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.

But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.

Driver said:

Eabhal said:

Flatlander said:

Eabhal said:

Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.

Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?

Doesn't really matter. It's the signal it sends.

I'm not sure how much that matters given the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president by the time of our next GE.

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.

I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.

The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.

Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.

I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.

What has Trump said about Ukraine?

Peace on Day One.

Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.

What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.

As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.

But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.

At the moment the peace that looks achievable is one based on Ukrainian weakness, did to the cessation of support from the US. As peaces go this is likely to involve a high degree of suffering for Ukrainian civilians under Russian occupation, so you can understand why Ukrainians would prefer to receive the support that would enable them to defeat Russia.

I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.

Malmesbury said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.

Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?

He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.

From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.

He will find a way.

The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.

To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.

FrankBooth said:

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.

I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.

The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.

Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.

I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.

What has Trump said about Ukraine?

Peace on Day One.

Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.

What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.

As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.

But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.

At the moment the peace that looks achievable is one based on Ukrainian weakness, did to the cessation of support from the US. As peaces go this is likely to involve a high degree of suffering for Ukrainian civilians under Russian occupation, so you can understand why Ukrainians would prefer to receive the support that would enable them to defeat Russia.

I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.

Remember that Biden deliberately stopped us providing some support that we wanted to.

Eabhal said:

Driver said:

Eabhal said:

Flatlander said:

Eabhal said:

Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.

Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?

Doesn't really matter. It's the signal it sends.

I'm not sure how much that matters given the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president by the time of our next GE.

If Badenoch spends a few years battling with Farage for Reform voters, and does so by making pro-Trump noises, it will absolutely make a difference. Perhaps not to Reform voters, but certainly to the Lib Dems in the Shires.

Malmesbury said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.

Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?

He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.

From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.

He will find a way.

The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.

To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.

GIN1138 said:

The amount of "questions" Labour MP's are asking Starmar via digs at Kemi tells me their they're rattled at the new LOTO

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

noneoftheabove said:

JosiasJessop said:

Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.

I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?

Anything is possible. Against it would be the favourite for Sec of State (also in running for NSA) is Ric Grenell, openly gay. If it happens its probably over a 10-20 year cycle rather than in this term.

A little lesson from history: some Jewish groups, such as the German Vanguard and the German Nazi Jews Association, supported the Nazis during their rise to power. Only to later get outlawed and many members put into the camps. Both groups disliked Marxism and Communism more than they feared Hitler's rhetoric against communists and other groups.

Members of minority groups supporting harsh words and actions against other minority groups should consider this.

In the face of declining birthrates, I could imagine some governments, even liberal democratic ones, seeking to reverse many of the social changes of the post 1960's.

That's very easy for us as men to say. But reversing those social changes will affect women much more than it does men, as the only way for the decline in birthrates to be reversed, and immigration curtailed, is for women to have more children. And it seems many women quite like the idea of not having many, or even any, children.

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.

Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?

He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.

From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.

He will find a way.

The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.

To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.

He's an old old man already, I cannot see even him trying this, though he has 'joked' about it, and his jokes are often actually genuine. If he sees no need to hang on - like he probably needed to win in order to stay out of prison - then his interest in doing so would in any case evaporate. He can relax with his billions and assurance that karma does not exist.

RandallFlagg said:

Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.

numbertwelve said:

Don’t think Badenoch is doing a great job here

Cookie said:

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.

Nor can I. But I think that will be drawing the wrong lesson i.e. 'we lost because the voters are sexist' rather than 'we lost because we pick candidates whose position is not close to that of the voters'.
But the former will be the easier comfort blanket to cling to.

Stark_Dawning said:

A real test for Kemi - will she get caught up in the moment and be up Trump like a rat up a drainpipe?

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.

Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?

He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.

From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.

He will find a way.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RandallFlagg said:

Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.

I don't agree

The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Clearly abortion was not the salient issue the Harris team (and to be fair me) believed it was. So many people seem to have sat on their hands.

I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.

rottenborough said:

Presumably it is going to be like a funeral on the Labour backbenches at PMQs in a minute or two?

FrankBooth said:

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.

I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.

The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.

Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.

I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.

What has Trump said about Ukraine?

Peace on Day One.

Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.

What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.

As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.

But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.

At the moment the peace that looks achievable is one based on Ukrainian weakness, did to the cessation of support from the US. As peaces go this is likely to involve a high degree of suffering for Ukrainian civilians under Russian occupation, so you can understand why Ukrainians would prefer to receive the support that would enable them to defeat Russia.

I regret that the US, Europe, and Britain have not provided that support.

Remember that Biden deliberately stopped us providing some support that we wanted to.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Flatlander said:

Eabhal said:

Looks like Badenoch is going for the Reform vote. Stark difference with Davey on Trump, abandoning the centre.

Is she supporting Trump, or just pointing out that Labour are going to have to deal with him, rather than throwing tantrums?

She said Labour are implementing Bidenonimics.

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RandallFlagg said:

Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.

I don't agree

The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic

Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.

I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.

Stark_Dawning said:

SouthamObserver said:

Stark_Dawning said:

A real test for Kemi - will she get caught up in the moment and be up Trump like a rat up a drainpipe?

The right wing press is going to try to push the Tories closer to Trump. I think the Tories would do well to resist. The UK is not the US.

Yes, the pressure on Kemi to model herself as a kind of British Trump protegee will be enormous. Even the great and the good of the Tory Party - Boris, Liz Truss - are now full-on Trump admirers, so it's difficult to see where the voices of caution will come from. I fear the temptation will be too great too resist.

Driver said:

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.

Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?

He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.

From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.

He will find a way.

The 22nd Amendment is quite clear on this. To remove an amendment requires supra-majorities etc. The mechanism for creating and repealing Amendments to the constitution are also clear.

To get past the above, you'd be in the territory of simply ignoring the constitution.

He's an old old man already, I cannot see even him trying this, though he has 'joked' about it, and his jokes are often actually genuine. If he sees no need to hang on - like he probably needed to win in order to stay out of prison - then his interest in doing so would in any case evaporate. He can relax with his billions and assurance that karma does not exist.

Yeah, I'm sure that if there were a way he would try it just because he could. But there isn't and he won't.

Flatlander said:

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RandallFlagg said:

Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.

I don't agree

The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic

Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.

I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.

Is the government also going to do some tactical fence sitting, or cut itself off from the US?

It really is an important question.

You don't need to be pro Trump to ask it.

Jonathan said:

Stark_Dawning said:

SouthamObserver said:

Stark_Dawning said:

A real test for Kemi - will she get caught up in the moment and be up Trump like a rat up a drainpipe?

The right wing press is going to try to push the Tories closer to Trump. I think the Tories would do well to resist. The UK is not the US.

Yes, the pressure on Kemi to model herself as a kind of British Trump protegee will be enormous. Even the great and the good of the Tory Party - Boris, Liz Truss - are now full-on Trump admirers, so it's difficult to see where the voices of caution will come from. I fear the temptation will be too great too resist.

The big problem for Kemi is that Trump already has a right wing best friend in the U.K. He’s actually at the party. Badenoch is at best an irrelevant third wheel.

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

noneoftheabove said:

JosiasJessop said:

Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.

I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?

Anything is possible. Against it would be the favourite for Sec of State (also in running for NSA) is Ric Grenell, openly gay. If it happens its probably over a 10-20 year cycle rather than in this term.

A little lesson from history: some Jewish groups, such as the German Vanguard and the German Nazi Jews Association, supported the Nazis during their rise to power. Only to later get outlawed and many members put into the camps. Both groups disliked Marxism and Communism more than they feared Hitler's rhetoric against communists and other groups.

Members of minority groups supporting harsh words and actions against other minority groups should consider this.

In the face of declining birthrates, I could imagine some governments, even liberal democratic ones, seeking to reverse many of the social changes of the post 1960's.

That's very easy for us as men to say. But reversing those social changes will affect women much more than it does men, as the only way for the decline in birthrates to be reversed, and immigration curtailed, is for women to have more children. And it seems many women quite like the idea of not having many, or even any, children.

The survey data I saw from about 15-20 years ago was that, on average, women wanted one more child than they had. Obviously plenty of women are happy without children, or with the size of the family they have, but for others they start a family too late to have as many children as they want, feel forced to settle for a smaller family because they can't afford the housing to comfortably have more, or never meet the right person to raise a family with.

It would be wrong to say that the low birthrate is solely due to women choosing to have fewer children, and that increasing the birthrate would necessarily involve coercion.

turbotubbs said:

not_on_fire said:

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.

Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...

Why would there not be an election?

Cookie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RandallFlagg said:

Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.

I don't agree

The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic

Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.

I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.

I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching

You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make

I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning

I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable.
It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor
politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.

david_herdson said:

PoodleInASlipstream said:

TOPPING said:

But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.

If Trump acts to fully abandon Ukraine - no more military or financial aid, no intelligence, lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of Russian assets - then Ukraine cannot win and the war will stop eventually. It's that simple.

Russia will be free to trade again with much of the world, buy the components and material to build weapons (and indeed buy off-the-shelf weapons) and sustain their war-footing economy for much longer.

There is really only two ways to deal with that. The easy route is to force Ukraine to sign a peace deal, one that will be on Putin's terms. Likely to involve Ukraine ceding all occupied territory to Russia, giving back Kursk, no EU or NATO membership and effective demilitarisation. Which is, of course, is just a way of Putin buying a couple of years to rebuild and then overrun a defenceless Ukraine. It's kicking a hand grenade down the road, but European governments are good at that.

The other is for several major European powers to commit to direct intervention in Ukraine - boots on the ground, jets in the air - until Russia is pushed out. Morally the right thing to do and the only long-term solution to Russian expansionism, but risky on multiple levels. How much of a defence can Europe really mount? NATO militaries have been underfunded for decades and were built with the assumption any major conflict would be fought with massive US support. And some of NATO's best weapons - like the F-35 - cannot be used for any real length of time without US backing.

I hope Europe chooses to defend Ukraine, but the realist in me acknowledges it's the less likely option.

There is a middle option, though it still tends towards the second, which is for Europe to fill in the hole that a Trump withdrawal would leave, while still not committing to active engagement; constructing a new European Defence Association, within NATO for now but capable of continuing to function if Trump renders NATO inoperable; developing and building the military infrastructure from intelligence to hardware to be functionally independent of Trump blackmail (this includes nuclear independence for the UK); supplying Ukraine with money and equipment in the interim; rewriting EU / domestic rules to enable the spending necessary; rewriting EU rules to prevent hostile actors from preventing these changes, including expelling them if necessary; the UK and EU treating each others are partners again rather than contractors; a nuclear umbrella for Ukraine from UK/France.

That will take an almighty change of mindset and I simply don't see the likes of Starmer (too technocratic), Scholz (too fearful), or Macron (too unpopular) to be able to do it. Instead, I think there'd be a halfhearted effort to carry on as before but without any meaningful structural change - a policy driven by momentum and gesture rather than clear-headed geostrategic thinking. And that wouldn't be enough for Ukraine - or, crucially, whoever's next.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I am now very interested in a Johnson comeback.

Mexicanpete said:

turbotubbs said:

not_on_fire said:

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.

Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...

Why would there not be an election?

Trump has suggested there will be no requirements for another election after this one. I suspect that is not entirely true and we will see the Putineque model of elections.

Mexicanpete said:

turbotubbs said:

not_on_fire said:

Dopermean said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Can't see them picking another female candidate for a while.

Shapiro would likely have a chance against Vance in 2028 - but that's assuming there's an election...

Why would there not be an election?

Trump has suggested there will be no requirements for another election after this one. I suspect that is not entirely true and we will see the Putineque model of elections.

MaxPB said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Clearly abortion was not the salient issue the Harris team (and to be fair me) believed it was. So many people seem to have sat on their hands.

I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.

That's not the right read, I think abortion is still a hugely important issue, 57% of voters in Florida just voted in favour. What people have discovered is that they can just do it at state level which secures it for good rather than leave it to the courts or federal government. That means people are ok with having a GOP senate/house/POTUS and just handling the abortion issue as they see fit.

rottenborough said:

Rory Stewart:

My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"

MaxPB said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Clearly abortion was not the salient issue the Harris team (and to be fair me) believed it was. So many people seem to have sat on their hands.

I don’t think I appreciate at all how much the American people must feel things have gone wrong since 2020.

That's not the right read, I think abortion is still a hugely important issue, 57% of voters in Florida just voted in favour. What people have discovered is that they can just do it at state level which secures it for good rather than leave it to the courts or federal government. That means people are ok with having a GOP senate/house/POTUS and just handling the abortion issue as they see fit.

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.

I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.

The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.

Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.

I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.

What has Trump said about Ukraine?

Peace on Day One.

Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.

What I am saying is that if you empower Putin it's very bad for the UK. You empower Putin by giving him what he wants. The Ukrainians do not want to give him what he wants. They want to fight. For as long as they do, I think it's in our interests to help them do it. The alternative is we leave what Europe looks like to Putin.

As I said earlier, the only people who can decide to stop the war are the Ukranians.

But we seem to have a stalemate with many people dying. Are we saying that peace is less good than that on account of Putin's putative threat to the rest of Europe.

A stalemate is better than a temporary peace that allows Putin to rebuild his capacity to redraw the map of Europe in the way he wants. But a permanent peace is better than a stalemate. You are not going to get a permanent peace on Day One of a Trump presidency. You are only going to get a temporary one.

You mean he was using a rhetorical device? Oh my.

Oh and you casually throw out the word stalemate as though it somehow doesn't involve the death of many young men. You don't get to say whether that is a "price worth paying".

We don't know if he was using a rhetorical device, that's kind of the point here. I am concerned it was not.

The reality of war is that young men (and women) will die fighting it, and many civilians of all ages will too. The Ukrainians get to decide whether it is a price worth paying. If they believe it is, I believe we should help them because it is in our interests to do so.

So on the one hand we should keep Ukraine fighting because it is in our interests to do so (the implication being "regardless of what they think"), but on the other you say it is contingent upon them wanting to, which means, presumably, that if they didn't want to we shouldn't help to keep them fighting, despite that not being in our interests.

You can't have it both ways.

No, that's not what I have said. I have said it's up to Ukraine to decide what to do. But if they want to fight Putin they should be helped to do so by us because it is in our interests he is at least contained. If we sit back and allow him to overpower European countries because we say no when they ask us for help, we will just be telling him he can decide what Europe's borders will be. However, if the Ukrainians want to stop then that is a decision we are obliged to accept and which we will accept.

Cookie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RandallFlagg said:

Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.

I don't agree

The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic

Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.

I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.

I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching

You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make

I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning

I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable.
It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor
politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.

TOPPING said:

As I noted last night, you might think that abortion is the most important issue for you but nationally, for the good of the country, competence on the economy will determine your vote.

turbotubbs said:

MattW said:

Cookie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RandallFlagg said:

Badenoch should have gone after Starmer on the budget not Trump.

I don't agree

The only news today is Trump and of course Lammy's derogatory comments were an obvious topic

Haha, now you're pearl-clutching about someone saying something mean about the sainted Donald Trump.

I really don't think this is the side the Conservatives want to be on. Tactical fence-sitting is in order.

I do not agree and what's with this childish pearl clutching

You are overreacting using words like sainted Donald Trump and it is a choice the conservatives will now make

I would just add Lammy's comments have been widely read out across the media this morning

I agree with Big G. Eabhal is right that the tactical approach should be tactical fence sitting - which is why the FS calling tge president of our ally a sociopathic neo-nazi is so inadvisable.
It may be true. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if, say, MexicanPete said so. But it's poor
politics when you are FS to say so in writing. Lammy is an idiot.

Lammy's comments were in 2017, unless he has repeated them, when he wasn't even on the Shadow Front Bench.

Trouble is the internet is very good at remembering things. So when Lammy meets his US counterpart, you can be pretty sure that they know full well what he said and thought.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

LostPassword said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

LostPassword said:

The Republicans are

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.

I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.

But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.

If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.

Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.

Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.

Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.

Which governor could have run and done better so you think?

Whitmer and Shapiro are the obvious ones who get mentioned a lot, probably for good reason.

Both have the added advantage for appealing to the American centre of being from neither New York nor California.

Surely their best chance of winning is next time. Where they won’t be facing Trump.

Is Trump definitely term limited for next time ?

He'll be OLD by then with another 4 years in the WH so might run Ramaswamy or Desantis as a proxy not run.

From day one he will be working for and agitating for an end to term limits. I've said this before on here and been told 'you need 2/3 of the states', 'Trump derangement syndrome' etc etc.

He will find a way.

One of the advantages for Trump of announcing his intention to run for a third term early is that it enables him to fundraise for it - a major motivator for Trump.

It will also make Democrats absolutely furious and wild with panic, probably handily distracting them from most everything else he wants to do.

Absolutely - it's worked with PB, too.

Reposting my list from upthread, note that none of these mention either a 'third term', or the Supreme Court.
Those are concerns for later. These are more immediate - and quite a few affect us directly.

Mass deportations;
Massive tariffs;
Support for an Israeli 'gloves off' strategy in the Middle East (Netanyahu has already appointed a more fundamentalist defence minister in anticipation);
Abandonment (or not ?) of Ukraine;
Removal of some/all US strategic support for any/all of Taiwan, S Korea and Japan;
Ditto NATO;
Revenge, retribution, and possibly prosecution of his domestic opponents;
Dismantling of what the US has in the way of a welfare state;
Repeal of Obamacare;
Ending of the CHIPS Act manufacturing incentives...

Can someone explain that last one to me please. I have seen it mentioned several times that Trump is opposed to the CHIPS manufacturing act but I struggle to see why (though much of that is because I only have a very passing idea of what it is). First impressions is that it is designed to support home grown manufacturing and so reduce reliance on China etc. I thougt this was something Trump would be all in favour of. Reduce imports and more US manufacturing. If that is the case then why is he so opposed to it?

TOPPING said:

Rory is an idiot.

And aside from the huge tit he has just made of himself, his podcast is super-cringe. It reminds me of the Spitting Image puppets of Davids Owen and Steele with one in the other's pocket.

The whole thing revolves around that a*****le Campbell saying something leftist and idiotic and inflammatory and Stewart saying "yes Alastair how clever Alastair absolutely Alastair".

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Just watched a Sky News YouTube clip. Lewis Goodall is wearing white socks with a suit. I dress like a teenage skateboarder, but even I'd draw the line at that.