It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future… – politicalbetting.com

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

Australia and NZ are closer in culture to the UK than most of Canada, which leans closer to the US (and Quebec leans closer to France than either)

Irrelevant.

There is a geopolitical logic in support of Anglo-Canada.

There is no longer any real logic in support of UK-Aus-NZ, and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

We couldn't defend it even then.

We shat that bed with our utterly piss-poor performance in defending Singapore, which I find shameful to this day.

We thought that the yellow men with buck teeth couldn’t fight. That turned out about as well as one might expect.

“Never fear your enemy, but respect him, always.” How often that precept is ignored.

Carnyx said:

ohnotnow said:

Carnyx said:

ohnotnow said:

Carnyx said:

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

My prediction for 2025: H5N1 will become a global pandemic.

Hope I'm very bad at predictions.

It does seem to be spreading amongst a whole bunch of different mammals in the USA. Just as RFK takes over there at Health.

Just as well there's no precedent for a virus jumping species via an intermediate host in conditions of poor animal husbandry and hygiene.

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

My prediction for 2025: H5N1 will become a global pandemic.

Hope I'm very bad at predictions.

It does seem to be spreading amongst a whole bunch of different mammals in the USA. Just as RFK takes over there at Health.

Just as well there's no precedent for a virus jumping species via an intermediate host in conditions of poor animal husbandry and hygiene.

H5N1 BirdFlu just sequenced by @CDCgov from severe Louisiana patient

Most important, the H5 virus mutated inside the single patient to gain an ability to bind human receptors in the upper respiratory tract..
https://x.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1872473233922134503

Oh dear, I do hope that isn't the single most important post this week. Or year.

Even if it does become pandemic, we’ve no good idea of how serious (or not) it might be.
Yet.

At least the planning for the next pandemic but one might turn out to be relevant this time. If they can find it.

It's on page 37496 sub-section D, footnote 4, in faint writing, of the unfinished Covid enquiry report. You just need to skim through the preceding 37495 pages of tittle-tattle and who said what to whom to get the gist. Something, something 'lab leak', something something 'Wales', something something 'oh well, here we go again'.

Actually, I was thinking of the plan they had in place - but seem to have ignored anyway. One hopes that SKS is rather different in his approach.

There's no point in having a detailed, well thought out plan if you don't then ignore it. Otherwise you wouldn't need another enquiry staffed by expensive KC's, judges, clerks, etc. Have you not been paying attention to how this works? Honestly, young mister Carnyx. Soon you'll be expecting the next tower-block fire to be quickly and safely dealt with due to the recommendations of the Grenfell Enquiry ;-)

TBF the plan emplaced pre-2019, I forget the code name, *was* for flu-type virus as I understand it. But ... quite so.

Yes it was, hence some of the early mistakes. Covid is very different to flu, but the pandemic plan might be much more apposite next time.

Incidentally my Trusts version modeled a 2.5% mortality rate. I have a copy somewhere.

kinabalu said:

Fishing said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-throws-down-gauntlet-to-watchdogs-with-growth-edict-13280738

The PM, chancellor and business secretary have written to watchdogs including Ofgem, the FCA and CMA to demand ideas for growth

This is what's wrong with the government and its budget. Labour has no policies, just some vague aspirations. It wants savings but does not know from where. It wants growth but does not know how. This is a motherhood and apple pie government.

It's not the job of regulators to do this. Did no-one in Labour do any thinking at all while in opposition?

It seems to me to be quite in order to ask regulators how regulation can be improved; they are the ones who are closest to their industries or sectors.

And it seems that it is in the remit:

Most of Britain's economic regulators already have a Growth Duty enshrined in their statute, having come into effect in March 2017 under the Deregulation Act of two years earlier.

I think we have a late winner for Freudian slip of the year.

Good thinking Batman - let's get the Management Consultants in, instead of anyone who understands the industry !

The regulators understand the industry?

Bloody hell, they've hid that well.

Apparently Starmer is making an appeal to the regulators of various industries as to their bright ideas for the future. It's very lawyerly. Doesn't he realise that the people that can't make it in any given industry are precisely those that are employed by the regulators?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulators. But they tend not to be experts in "what causes growth?". It's like asking librarians on tips to improve numeracy.

The problem is if they asked those responsible for producing the growth they won't like the answers e.g. beep beep beep NI rise, beep beep beep business rates, ....

So some six months after coming to power, about 2 years after it was obvious that they would be in power and after a Budget which has raised taxes on businesses and employment, the Labour government decides to ask for ideas for growth.

As for the FCA's role, its role is to make sure financial markets work well for growth. Its job is not to create that growth. Asking it to promote growth creates an obvious conflict of interest with its main job which is to ensure that the financial sector does not behave in a way which leads to excessive and badly managed risk-taking which inhibits or damages growth and which causes harm to those financial markets and to consumers. There is a tension there. The last time a government took the brakes off those markets, weakened regulation and the power of regulators to keep them in check we ended up with the GFC, for which we are still paying.

Judging by the way Reeves and Siddiq are talking to City regulators, they seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the last Labour government.

It is chalk and cheese vs 1997 Labour. You can disagree about the Blair policies, but they change into government with a clear plan of action leveraging a load of research by the likes of the IPPR.

Yes, although their 1997 clear plan of action for the first two years was basically doing what the Conservatives would have done, with a few exceptions at the margin like giving the BofE operational independence, devastating the pension funds and raiding the privatised utilities.

Damaging, but not as disastrous as it later became till they suddenly ran out of other people's money in 2009.

On the whole, I think it's better that Starmer had no plan, because any roadmap this former Corbyn pal and the economic cretins he surrounds himself with had would almost certainly have been catastrophic, and he has the huge majority to implement it.

Talk about monkeys with guns. Pointed straight at the economy.

Could you not have squeezed a couple more right wing cliches about Labour into that post? Bit rushed, I sense.

Could you not have squeezed a coherent argument or a valid point into that post? Bit desperate, I sense.

carnforth said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

I see that we have reached the League of Empire Loyalists part of the evening.

Why not the other Commonwealth Realms too?

Most of the rest are tiny and have non white majority populations, so would look too imperial

I think PNG would add something useful to the Third Empire.

PNG's fascinating. The fourth largest population amongst the commonwealth realms, but canibalism documented as recently as ten years ago - and even the capital is considered dangerous to visit.

Has any PBer been?

I recall some-one here telling a tale about being in a hotel or restaurant in Port Moresby and a couple of the staff saying they had to go back to their home village for a few days - to kill some-one.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

I pointed out the other day that she had four quarters in a row of serious economic decline. Though if Labour match that, they’re unlikely to bounce back in quite the same way.

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

Starmer is no Thatcher or indeed Blair

Starmer won a bigger majority than Thatcher ever achieved.

Starmer made more net gains than Blair.

It’s an interesting comparison. Two years in, the Thatcher government seemed a failure.

Right now, the Starmer government looks a failure, and will probably look worse in July 2026 (the local elections that year will be hideous for Labour).

But, three years on, the position was transformed.

Thatcher had a strategy.

Part of me genuinely wonders if Starmer is doing a form of cosplay where he thinks if he's making himself really unpopular 6 months in it's because he's doing the right thing and exercising good governance and the electorate will come round and he'll inevitably win a second term.

There's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

That's why he is unpopular, more than anything. People like you (no offence) were always going to descend into hysterics when Labour got back in government. What he hasn't demonstrated to centrists/left wingers is any sort of mission or energy in the way that Thatcher did for centrists/right wingers back in the 80s.

There's a reason I've enjoyed Miliband and how much he has wound people up. He appears to be only person who is up for taking on the naysayers and has the courage of his convictions - and even then, what he's doing isn't particularly radical at all.

You think CCS is a good thing then and spending 22billion on it s worth it despite everyone who actually knows anything about CCS saying its performative bollocks?

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

I pointed out the other day that she had four quarters in a row of serious economic decline. Though if Labour match that, they’re unlikely to bounce back in quite the same way.

We just need 364 economists to write to The Times denouncing Starmer & Reeves.

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

Starmer is no Thatcher or indeed Blair

Thatcher was looking rather vulnerable in 1981 after a long economic slump, having raised taxes, and considerable disquiet in her own party as to how things were going.

Mrs Thatcher had also campaigned on Labour Isn't Working and then raised unemployment to three million; she had denied plans to double VAT and then increased it from 8 to 15 per cent; she had campaigned on the need to fight inflation and then (by increasing VAT) caused inflation to spike.

And here is where we can draw a parallel with Nick Clegg and tuition fees, and Starmer and Waspi women and freebies. In 2017 the party of law and order axing 20,000 police and opening us up to two terrorist outrages during the election campaign itself; or strong and stable and then u-turning. Forget the merits of one or other issues, it is lies and hypocrisy that voters don't like. Don't say one thing and do the opposite!

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

Australia and NZ are closer in culture to the UK than most of Canada, which leans closer to the US (and Quebec leans closer to France than either)

Irrelevant.

There is a geopolitical logic in support of Anglo-Canada.

There is no longer any real logic in support of UK-Aus-NZ, and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

We couldn't defend it even then.

We shat that bed with our utterly piss-poor performance in defending Singapore, which I find shameful to this day.

Why was the defence of Singapore (and Hong Kong) in WWII so poor?

A mixture of arrogance and not enough materiel sent to Singapore as we prioritised the Middle East/Africa.

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

carnforth said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

I see that we have reached the League of Empire Loyalists part of the evening.

Why not the other Commonwealth Realms too?

Most of the rest are tiny and have non white majority populations, so would look too imperial

I think PNG would add something useful to the Third Empire.

PNG's fascinating. The fourth largest population amongst the commonwealth realms, but canibalism documented as recently as ten years ago - and even the capital is considered dangerous to visit.

Has any PBer been?

I recall some-one here telling a tale about being in a hotel or restaurant in Port Moresby and a couple of the staff saying they had to go back to their home village for a few days - to kill some-one.

A friend of mine worked in Port Moresby for a couple of years in the Eighties. It was rather edgy, sufficient to make his next assignment in Johannesburg seem like light relief.

Hmm! A friend of mine, also a medic, worked in the diarrhoea hospital thereabouts and thenabouts - in the Sepik basin? His main memory - apart from work - seemed to be the gents' outfitting, aka. arsegrass.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

Starmer is no Thatcher or indeed Blair

Thatcher was looking rather vulnerable in 1981 after a long economic slump, having raised taxes, and considerable disquiet in her own party as to how things were going.

Mrs Thatcher had also campaigned on Labour Isn't Working and then raised unemployment to three million; she had denied plans to double VAT and then increased it from 8 to 15 per cent; she had campaigned on the need to fight inflation and then (by increasing VAT) caused inflation to spike.

And here is where we can draw a parallel with Nick Clegg and tuition fees, and Starmer and Waspi women and freebies. In 2017 the party of law and order axing 20,000 police and opening us up to two terrorist outrages during the election campaign itself; or strong and stable and then u-turning. Forget the merits of one or other issues, it is lies and hypocrisy that voters don't like. Don't say one thing and do the opposite!

She was true to her word on VAT, she didn't double VAT, it was a mere 87.5% increase.

ydoethur said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

Australia and NZ are closer in culture to the UK than most of Canada, which leans closer to the US (and Quebec leans closer to France than either)

Irrelevant.

There is a geopolitical logic in support of Anglo-Canada.

There is no longer any real logic in support of UK-Aus-NZ, and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

We couldn't defend it even then.

We shat that bed with our utterly piss-poor performance in defending Singapore, which I find shameful to this day.

Why was the defence of Singapore (and Hong Kong) in WWII so poor?

Hong Kong because it couldn't be defended so Whitehall ordered only a token effort be made.

Singapore because Whitehall thought it could only be attacked by sea so didn't bother to defend the landward side properly.

In other words, because of exactly opposite conclusions by men thousands of miles away.

And incidentally they were quite right about Hong Kong, but that begs the question of why they tried to offer a token resistance instead of trying to evacuate it.

And Singers materially damaged UK reputation in Australia, given the loss of Australians in the Fall. Helping the shift to Aus-US links. Something with permanent effects.

Edit: as well as UK reputation in the Empire full stop. Never recovered as far as I understand it.

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

It would also make sense to link up with the islands in between so Iceland and Greenland could become part of it.

The United Kingdom of the North Atlantic.

Northern Atlantic 'n United Kingdom

NANUK of the North....

Saw what you did there ...

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

I see that we have reached the League of Empire Loyalists part of the evening.

Why not the other Commonwealth Realms too?

It would depend on how friendly they were, and how similar the alignment in terms of foreign policy.

India and South Africa have very different ambitions to us, I think. Singapore, Botswana, and Malaysia would be pretty close, IMHO.

South Africa should be similar and friendly but has been fundamentally corrupted.

Though I hate it, personally, I can sort of understand the geopolitical logic in India playing both sides. But morally they should have more sympathy with Western values, given their governance and constitution.

India was neutral in the Cold War and will remain neutral largely now in geopolitics bar clashes with Pakistan and the odd spat with China.

South Africa was more pro western under the apartheid regime than now but that regime obviously had no real legitimacy (and nowadays would likely have considered much of the west corrupted by wokeism anyway)

The odd spat with China?!?

Indian foreign policy - beyond the special issue with Pakistan - is obsessed with the threat from China. It's one reason they want to keep a good relationship with Russia, as a counterweight to China. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has done a lot to fuck with India's geopolitical strategy.

India imports energy from Russia - over 40% of supply.
There are also cultural links with Russia going back to the Cold War.

In some ways India’s foreign policy provides a parallel to Germany’s Ostpolitik.

We should expect India to remain a swing power between the U.S.-led and China-led blocs.

Pagan2 said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

Starmer is no Thatcher or indeed Blair

Starmer won a bigger majority than Thatcher ever achieved.

Starmer made more net gains than Blair.

It’s an interesting comparison. Two years in, the Thatcher government seemed a failure.

Right now, the Starmer government looks a failure, and will probably look worse in July 2026 (the local elections that year will be hideous for Labour).

But, three years on, the position was transformed.

Thatcher had a strategy.

Part of me genuinely wonders if Starmer is doing a form of cosplay where he thinks if he's making himself really unpopular 6 months in it's because he's doing the right thing and exercising good governance and the electorate will come round and he'll inevitably win a second term.

There's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

That's why he is unpopular, more than anything. People like you (no offence) were always going to descend into hysterics when Labour got back in government. What he hasn't demonstrated to centrists/left wingers is any sort of mission or energy in the way that Thatcher did for centrists/right wingers back in the 80s.

There's a reason I've enjoyed Miliband and how much he has wound people up. He appears to be only person who is up for taking on the naysayers and has the courage of his convictions - and even then, what he's doing isn't particularly radical at all.

You think CCS is a good thing then and spending 22billion on it s worth it despite everyone who actually knows anything about CCS saying its performative bollocks?

I'm not that fussed about the government spending money on novel technologies, and my instinct is to welcome investment whenever it happens.

There's a chance, given current carbon emissions projections, that effective CCS is the only thing standing between the world and genuine climate disaster within my lifetime. On that basis CO2 disposal is worth a punt, perhaps.

It's the opportunity cost that concerns me. I'd spend it on 22,000 miles of cycle lane instead. Better still, in addition.

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

The logic doesn't really matter - the issue is more the UK's current disposition. As dearly as I love my country, we are currently punch-drunk, with a dismal (if not actively disloyal) Government, and a civil service to match. Any formal alliance we enter into will not work for us, because we don't work for us. It will cost us. Once we have a Government with a bit of mojo about it, there will be a few things we need to do before we enter into deep pacts with Canada, Australia, New Zealand or any of the above.

1. Shore up the UK with a fair, mutually satisfactory and irrevocable constitutional settlement.
2. Reach an accommodation with the Republic of Ireland that recognises and reinforces the enormously close ties between our nations whilst respecting the Republic's understandable boundaries. Ireland has always been a back door to invasion of the UK by hostile powers, hence the bloody history (which I am not condoning). At the moment the EU, and frankly America, are playing the role that France and others have done in the past. It may be that the UK's future with Ireland might involve pulling it out of the EU by making it a better offer to join a new sterling group. This isn't a Luckyguy fever dream, it's been suggested by people within the ROI: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eirexit-could-ireland-follow-britain-out-of-the-eu-1.2864539 - I say this with no resentment toward the EU or wish to diminish it out of spite, I just think Irexit might be a natural progression.

It is quite clear that foreign entanglements of any kind are useless until these two key issues are resolved.

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

Australia and NZ are closer in culture to the UK than most of Canada, which leans closer to the US (and Quebec leans closer to France than either)

Irrelevant.

There is a geopolitical logic in support of Anglo-Canada.

There is no longer any real logic in support of UK-Aus-NZ, and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

We couldn't defend it even then.

We shat that bed with our utterly piss-poor performance in defending Singapore, which I find shameful to this day.

Why was the defence of Singapore (and Hong Kong) in WWII so poor?

As alluded to previously, underestimating the enemy played a big part. Sending out a battleship & battle cruiser without air cover indicates that, and also little or no preparations for an assault on the north of the island.

The numbers are stark for attackers v defenders, 35000 Japanese v 85000 British & Commonwealth.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

Hot take: JRM was only knighted in order to piss off Nadine Dorries.

A former Tory MP once told me that Rishi Sunak only made David Cameron Foreign Secretary to piss off Nadine Dorries because it meant Dave would become a member of the Lords.

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

Starmer is no Thatcher or indeed Blair

Starmer won a bigger majority than Thatcher ever achieved.

Starmer made more net gains than Blair.

It’s an interesting comparison. Two years in, the Thatcher government seemed a failure.

Right now, the Starmer government looks a failure, and will probably look worse in July 2026 (the local elections that year will be hideous for Labour).

But, three years on, the position was transformed.

Thatcher had a strategy.

Part of me genuinely wonders if Starmer is doing a form of cosplay where he thinks if he's making himself really unpopular 6 months in it's because he's doing the right thing and exercising good governance and the electorate will come round and he'll inevitably win a second term.

There's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

That's why he is unpopular, more than anything. People like you (no offence) were always going to descend into hysterics when Labour got back in government. What he hasn't demonstrated to centrists/left wingers is any sort of mission or energy in the way that Thatcher did for centrists/right wingers back in the 80s.

There's a reason I've enjoyed Miliband and how much he has wound people up. He appears to be only person who is up for taking on the naysayers and has the courage of his convictions - and even then, what he's doing isn't particularly radical at all.

You think CCS is a good thing then and spending 22billion on it s worth it despite everyone who actually knows anything about CCS saying its performative bollocks?

I'm not that fussed about the government spending money on novel technologies, and my instinct is to welcome investment whenever it happens.

There's a chance, given current carbon emissions projections, that effective CCS is the only thing standing between the world and genuine climate disaster within my lifetime. On that basis CO2 disposal is worth a punt, perhaps.

It's the opportunity cost that concerns me. I'd spend it on 22,000 miles of cycle lane instead. Better still, in addition.

CCS is not a novel technology but a mature its been developed for years...no one bothers deploying it because its bollocks that really doesn't work that well...save of course for Milibrand

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

Hot take: JRM was only knighted in order to piss off Nadine Dorries.

His wife is granddaughter of an Earl anyway so he didn't really need it

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Rees-Mogg? Tory leader? What an excellent idea for all of us who dislike the Tories.

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

a few points.
1) A labour majority of over 100 means that there's no likelihood of a GE any time in the next 3.5 years (It'll be 4.5 years if Labour don't look like winning comfortably) so people don't really think about how they respond in polls too hard.
2) It's Christmas no-one cares about politics (apart from us) over Christmas so I trust any polls less than I would any other 3.5 years away from the next GE
3) there are lots of events going to happen in the next 3.5 years which will have an impact on how people think.

carnforth said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

I see that we have reached the League of Empire Loyalists part of the evening.

Why not the other Commonwealth Realms too?

Most of the rest are tiny and have non white majority populations, so would look too imperial

I think PNG would add something useful to the Third Empire.

PNG's fascinating. The fourth largest population amongst the commonwealth realms, but canibalism documented as recently as ten years ago - and even the capital is considered dangerous to visit.

Has any PBer been?

I've been there. The lowlands and capital were perfectly reasonable although we didn't go anywhere after dark.

The mountainous areas relied on a completely different (some would say non-existent) judicial and legal system. Essentially it came down to summary justice, such that if you knocked someone down with your car you could expect to be killed on the spot by any passers by.

As far as we were able to make any sense of the community structure in the highlands, it seemed to consist of independent (sometimes federated) communities constantly in low-level civil war. Some were fascinating, including a couple of matriarchal groups.

Along with the Darien gap it's one of the places I have felt least in control of my own destiny.

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Rees-Mogg? Tory leader? What an excellent idea for all of us who dislike the Tories.

assuming that he'd stand again.

Stuartinromford said:

rottenborough said:

Oh!!


Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
2h
Steve Bannon on Elon Musk: This guy lives on government contracts and taxpayer subsidies…You’re not even an American, all you are is a globalist. You would take a check from Adolph Hitler.

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1873078155654906132

Oh!

Donald Trump has sided with Elon Musk in the feud over H-1B skilled worker visas that has split the American political right over the past few days.

Speaking by phone with The New York Post on Saturday, the president-elect said: “I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-elon-musk-visa-immigration-b2671018.html

Looks like he is going too pro immigration for his base in office as Boris did

Theuniondivvie said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

Australia and NZ are closer in culture to the UK than most of Canada, which leans closer to the US (and Quebec leans closer to France than either)

Irrelevant.

There is a geopolitical logic in support of Anglo-Canada.

There is no longer any real logic in support of UK-Aus-NZ, and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

We couldn't defend it even then.

We shat that bed with our utterly piss-poor performance in defending Singapore, which I find shameful to this day.

Why was the defence of Singapore (and Hong Kong) in WWII so poor?

As alluded to previously, underestimating the enemy played a big part. Sending out a battleship & battle cruiser without air cover indicates that, and also little or no preparations for an assault on the north of the island.

The numbers are stark for attackers v defenders, 35000 Japanese v 85000 British & Commonwealth.

Force Z was supposed to include an aircraft carrier, the HMS Indomitable, but that was run aground on a reef near Jamaica, so needed repair before sailing to join the capital ships. It never got there.

There was a plan to counterattack the landings on the NE Malaya coast, by both land forces and on the Japanese landing ships, but it went off half cocked. The British command thought no landing could take place before the monsoon finished in February.

The British Imperial forces were road bound, but the Japanese simply bypassed our positions forcing retreat and lots of abandoned equipment and supplies. It was a total fiasco.

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

rottenborough said:

Oh!!


Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
2h
Steve Bannon on Elon Musk: This guy lives on government contracts and taxpayer subsidies…You’re not even an American, all you are is a globalist. You would take a check from Adolph Hitler.

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1873078155654906132

Oh!

Donald Trump has sided with Elon Musk in the feud over H-1B skilled worker visas that has split the American political right over the past few days.

Speaking by phone with The New York Post on Saturday, the president-elect said: “I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-elon-musk-visa-immigration-b2671018.html

Looks like he is going too pro immigration for his base in office as Boris did

For once I think he has actually not changed his position. iirc Trump has always said he is favour of legal migration but not undocumented, illegal migration.

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

rottenborough said:

Oh!!


Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
2h
Steve Bannon on Elon Musk: This guy lives on government contracts and taxpayer subsidies…You’re not even an American, all you are is a globalist. You would take a check from Adolph Hitler.

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1873078155654906132

Oh!

Donald Trump has sided with Elon Musk in the feud over H-1B skilled worker visas that has split the American political right over the past few days.

Speaking by phone with The New York Post on Saturday, the president-elect said: “I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-elon-musk-visa-immigration-b2671018.html

Looks like he is going too pro immigration for his base in office as Boris did

it's not like he can run again.

ydoethur said:

Andy_JS said:

A Paul Merton-presented show on Radio 4 about the Millennium Dome, one of the best things Tony Blair ever did in my opinion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002692h

The Millenium Dome was the brainchild of Michael Heseltine.

The exhibition contents were entirely New Labour though.

Coincidentally, the exhibition was a disaster but the repurposing of the structure afterwards was a great success.

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

Australia and NZ are closer in culture to the UK than most of Canada, which leans closer to the US (and Quebec leans closer to France than either)

Irrelevant.

There is a geopolitical logic in support of Anglo-Canada.

There is no longer any real logic in support of UK-Aus-NZ, and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

We couldn't defend it even then.

We shat that bed with our utterly piss-poor performance in defending Singapore, which I find shameful to this day.

Why was the defence of Singapore (and Hong Kong) in WWII so poor?

Hong Kong was OK, given the odds.

Singapore was an epic failure of leadership. I don't buy the equipment or green troops argument.

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

IMHO, that's where things are currently heading.

Stuartinromford said:

rottenborough said:

Oh!!


Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
2h
Steve Bannon on Elon Musk: This guy lives on government contracts and taxpayer subsidies…You’re not even an American, all you are is a globalist. You would take a check from Adolph Hitler.

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1873078155654906132

Oh!

Donald Trump has sided with Elon Musk in the feud over H-1B skilled worker visas that has split the American political right over the past few days.

Speaking by phone with The New York Post on Saturday, the president-elect said: “I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-elon-musk-visa-immigration-b2671018.html

Trump promised every foreign student who graduates in the US a Green Card during the campaign.

Not that his promises are worth much.

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Rees-Mogg? Tory leader? What an excellent idea for all of us who dislike the Tories.

Many Tory voters thought the same when Corbyn was elected Labour leader in 2015 but at the 2017 general election he got a hung parliament and nearly won. Corbyn united the left behind him as Mogg would unite the right behind him

Mogg is catastrophically unelectable. Like Corbyn.

That would be the Corbyn who got 40% of the vote in 2017 and was just another 30 seats from becoming PM?

Or the Corbyn who in 2019 got 32% of the vote and was less than 2% behind what Starmer got in 2019?

In these volatile economic times and with populism on the rise to say Mogg is completely unelectable is the height of centrist dad complacency.

The odds are he isn't but you would have to hope centrist swing voters stick with Labour and the LDs enough to keep The Mogg out as we Tories had to pray centrist swing voters stuck with us enough to keep out Corbyn

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

IIUC Lauderdale was not the father of MRP since the original paper and early implementations were in the States. Like every polling innovation it was derided until it was a better predictor than the others, when it became the new sexy. Despite recent "failures" (prediction errors greater than those deemed acceptable), I think these problems are down to known society problems such as differential non-response, different turnout rates, and rapid change in society behaviour. This is made even worse by the fact that MRP, being a chain of models, is fundamentally a DS/ML technique, whereas your more classical polling can partially (although not wholly) can claim to be based on classical statistics and underlying theory. So it was bound to go wrong at least once eventually.

Having said that, I think we're just going to have to get used to the fact that polling has an accuracy problem and take that into account when we predict.

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Kemi so far is getting no traction and there is absolutely zero momentum towards the Tories currently; just a bit of dead cat bounce in a few polls. If there is any momentum, Farage has it, and you seem to be relying on a mathematical quirk of the voting system to deliver these gains - one that would be on shaky ground if it were predicted four days before an election, let alone four years in advance. Who knows who will be leading your lot , by then?

Kemi will stay, she won the MPs AND members vote. She will get a shot at a GE therefore, if she wins great, if she doesn't it looks like The Mogg could be in prime position to replace her

Don't be ridiculous. Even most Tory Party members know that he is a joke character even if you don't.

If Badenoch loses in 2028 after Sunak lost in 2024 than would be twice in a row the more moderate of the final 2 Tory leadership contenders led the party into an election but lost that general election and mainly due to votes lost to the further right Reform.

Tory members would therefore be ready to try a red meat rightwinger like Rees Mogg to try and win such voters back. Rees Mogg of course backed Jenrick last time but unlike him and Truss was also a Leaver and not a recent convert to the right

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Kemi so far is getting no traction and there is absolutely zero momentum towards the Tories currently; just a bit of dead cat bounce in a few polls. If there is any momentum, Farage has it, and you seem to be relying on a mathematical quirk of the voting system to deliver these gains - one that would be on shaky ground if it were predicted four days before an election, let alone four years in advance. Who knows who will be leading your lot , by then?

I think too that there would be a lot of tactical voting to keep out the blue and turquoise meanies. If there is anything more likely to drive that than the prospect of Farage in number 10 then I don't know what that is.

Labour voters didn't turn out in "safe seats" in July, partly unenthusiased by Starmer, but actually correct in their judgement that in nearly all their seats that staying home, going Green or Gaza Independent etc wouldn't affect the result. They may well think differently next time, particularly if they feel their seat is up for grabs, and they have seen some real levelling up.

Driver said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Kemi so far is getting no traction and there is absolutely zero momentum towards the Tories currently; just a bit of dead cat bounce in a few polls. If there is any momentum, Farage has it, and you seem to be relying on a mathematical quirk of the voting system to deliver these gains - one that would be on shaky ground if it were predicted four days before an election, let alone four years in advance. Who knows who will be leading your lot , by then?

I think too that there would be a lot of tactical voting to keep out the blue and turquoise meanies. If there is anything more likely to drive that than the prospect of Farage in number 10 then I don't know what that is.

Labour voters didn't turn out in "safe seats" in July, partly unenthusiased by Starmer, but actually correct in their judgement that in nearly all their seats that staying home, going Green or Gaza Independent etc wouldn't affect the result. They may well think differently next time, particularly if they feel their seat is up for grabs, and they have seen some real levelling up.

Tactical voting can cut both ways, of course.

The right can't win a majority in a FPTP electoral system while divided between Tory and RefUK. It only helps the Lib Dems and Labour

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Rees-Mogg? Tory leader? What an excellent idea for all of us who dislike the Tories.

Many Tory voters thought the same when Corbyn was elected Labour leader in 2015 but at the 2017 general election he got a hung parliament and nearly won. Corbyn united the left behind him as Mogg would unite the right behind him

Mogg is catastrophically unelectable. Like Corbyn.

That would be the Corbyn who got 40% of the vote in 2017 and was just another 30 seats from becoming PM?

55 seats short, actually.

spudgfsh said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Kemi so far is getting no traction and there is absolutely zero momentum towards the Tories currently; just a bit of dead cat bounce in a few polls. If there is any momentum, Farage has it, and you seem to be relying on a mathematical quirk of the voting system to deliver these gains - one that would be on shaky ground if it were predicted four days before an election, let alone four years in advance. Who knows who will be leading your lot , by then?

I think too that there would be a lot of tactical voting to keep out the blue and turquoise meanies. If there is anything more likely to drive that than the prospect of Farage in number 10 then I don't know what that is.

Labour voters didn't turn out in "safe seats" in July, partly unenthusiased by Starmer, but actually correct in their judgement that in nearly all their seats that staying home, going Green or Gaza Independent etc wouldn't affect the result. They may well think differently next time, particularly if they feel their seat is up for grabs, and they have seen some real levelling up.

Tactical voting can cut both ways, of course.

The right can't win a majority in a FPTP electoral system while divided between Tory and RefUK. It only helps the Lib Dems and Labour

The left is divided between LibDem and Labour (and SNP in Scotland, PC in Wales).

Sunil_Prasannan said:

spudgfsh said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

The Conservatives need to crush Reform.
It’s not impossible that by 2029 the Cons are relegated to minor party status.

Unlikely, on tonight's MRP the Tories gain almost 100 seats and Reform overtake the LDs as the third party in the Commons but Labour still scrape home as largest party in a hung parliament.

Sir Jacob though is projected to regain his NE Somerset seat and if Kemi resigned after an election defeat Rees Mogg would be ideally placed to replace her as Conservative leader and be much better placed to crush Reform and reunite the right than she is.

Kemi so far is getting no traction and there is absolutely zero momentum towards the Tories currently; just a bit of dead cat bounce in a few polls. If there is any momentum, Farage has it, and you seem to be relying on a mathematical quirk of the voting system to deliver these gains - one that would be on shaky ground if it were predicted four days before an election, let alone four years in advance. Who knows who will be leading your lot , by then?

I think too that there would be a lot of tactical voting to keep out the blue and turquoise meanies. If there is anything more likely to drive that than the prospect of Farage in number 10 then I don't know what that is.

Labour voters didn't turn out in "safe seats" in July, partly unenthusiased by Starmer, but actually correct in their judgement that in nearly all their seats that staying home, going Green or Gaza Independent etc wouldn't affect the result. They may well think differently next time, particularly if they feel their seat is up for grabs, and they have seen some real levelling up.

Tactical voting can cut both ways, of course.

The right can't win a majority in a FPTP electoral system while divided between Tory and RefUK. It only helps the Lib Dems and Labour

The left is divided between LibDem and Labour (and SNP in Scotland, PC in Wales).

it impacts the left less because they are more likely to vote tactically to get (or keep) the Tories out. in 2005 The LibDems got 22% and Labour still won a comfortable majority

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a twat of the first order. The fact that he was given a place on the front bench by his friend The Clown is one of the main reasons the Tories are in such a sorry state and that we have this economically illiterate Labour government

Boris made Rees-Mogg Leader of the House of Commons. Whilst it is not quite as low a role as I denigratingly joke that it is - suggesting it's role is merely to organise the business schedule of real ministers in the Commons - it is nonetheless not that significant a role compared to many others.

It took Liz Truss to trust Rees-Mogg enough to be given actual responsibility for a department as a Secretary of State. I find that telling.

But taking his comments on their own merits it is the all too frequent belief that Farage is really a Tory underneath, despiting opposing/influencing/undercutting them for 20 years, and so the 'solution' to unite with him a lot easier than the reality would indicate.

rottenborough said:

Popcorn time watching MAGA:



Bannon’s WarRoom
@Bannons_WarRoom

Bannon: @elonmusk you’re gonna go to war on the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend. I hate to make it personal, but you’ve tried to trash individuals by punching down. Remember the first rule at gladiator school, bro: don’t punch down. Either punch a peer or punch up.

https://x.com/Bannons_WarRoom/status/1873129547803312517

“Someone please notify CPS; they need to do a wellness check on this toddler."

Remember the first rule at gladiator school, bro: don’t punch down. Either punch a peer or punch up

What kind of weirdo 'gladiator school' is that?

BlancheLivermore said:

Got attacked by a rat today

It was sniffing around a front door on my round. It obviously wasn’t a healthy rat; it took a few seconds to notice me, and it limped back into the corner

Then the plucky little fucker surprised me - it jumped and swiped a front paw at me

It missed by a couple of inches, and then ‘ran’ down the path. It tried to jump into the undergrowth, but was too big for the hole it aimed for and just sat in the corner, when I got the picture

When I walked past it went for me, and missed, again

That's interesting - I would probably have jumped and been surprised.

Anyone in my family father's side (mum used to squeal at a mouse, though not jump on a chair like the maid in Tom & Jerry) one generation back would just have stamped on it.

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

I pointed out the other day that she had four quarters in a row of serious economic decline. Though if Labour match that, they’re unlikely to bounce back in quite the
same way.

May be they could send a task force to retake the Chagos Islands?

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

The point of a British-Canadian “economic community” would be to create a middle power of scale that provides strengthened independence and retains a privileged position with both the U.S. and the EU.

The combined entity would be a clear fourth largest bloc by GDP in the world (after the US, EU, and China), second largest by area (after Russia), and vie with Germany as the world’s third largest exporter.

It would be the world’s third largest oil exporter and fifth largest gas exporter. Also the second largest movie producer and music producer.

Add Australia and New Zealand too ie the main Commonwealth realms all together

The defence and economic logic doesn’t work.
Canada is still largely North Atlantic leaning (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in orientation.

Australia and NZ are Indo-Pacific powers.

Australia and NZ are closer in culture to the UK than most of Canada, which leans closer to the US (and Quebec leans closer to France than either)

Irrelevant.

There is a geopolitical logic in support of Anglo-Canada.

There is no longer any real logic in support of UK-Aus-NZ, and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

We couldn't defend it even then.

We shat that bed with our utterly piss-poor performance in defending Singapore, which I find shameful to this day.

Why was the defence of Singapore (and Hong Kong) in WWII so poor?

I’m certainly not an expert in that period, but I recall that all the investment went into sea facing defences because they didn’t conceive that someone could get an army down the Malay peninsula. When the Japanese succeeded they basically gave up

I ran across an interesting "engineer illustrating" video from Drachinifel earlier.

This is him exploring 2 questions:

1 - What ships actually looked like at early 20th century naval warfare ranges? Illustrated using a very zoom camera and views across London from Epsom Downs.
https://youtu.be/4ioR1rOu3fU?t=2328

2 - If you are too close to a sinking ship will the “suction” will drag you down? Illustrated using a ramekin dish of food colouring dropped into a tall cylinder of water, and a high frame rate digital camera to illustrate the physics and the fluid dynamics, including a modest refutation of mythbusters - where a rowing boat type sinking did not take the presenter with it. Nicely clear communication.
https://youtu.be/4ioR1rOu3fU?t=3114

For @Carnyx and anyone else interested.

(If you are interested he's also made his own version of Greek Fire - being a medieval re-enacting engineer, and explored what happens when armour impacted by a shell in physical simulation, amongst a number of others.)

Eabhal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from more in common

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1873085043889062130?t=O-gsF3zrUkCvUUChOP_SaQ&s=19

I hoped you and More In Common would remember that the MRP were utter bollocks at the last general election.

I am putting them in the Scottish subsample category.

Are you saying more in common are not a reputable polling company, or you just do not like what they and the other poll tonight have reported, both of which say much the same

I am saying the MRPs were utter gash at the last general election.

I would also point out what the father of the MRP Ben Lauderdale said, MRPs are only really worth something six months before election day.

Maybe but it is one of two polls tonight indicating a very similar snapshot of public opinion

One is an untested methodology, the other is a methodology that had an inglorious record at GE2024.

Just as a matter of interest do you think they are wrong

We all know they are current opinion, and opinions change and as many hope Labour may improve there is no real reason why they couldn't also go down further

The locals in May, and 2026 Senedd and Holyrood elections are round the corner and these are not promising polls for Labour to feel confident of performing well

And no doubt they provide a narrative for those considering betting on these elections

I am saying MRPs this far out are wrong, in 2021 the Tories were predicted to win 386 seats with one MRP.

At the actual election the Tories ended up with fewer than a third of that.

The Johnson government had yet to decline in popularity as the Starmer government already has

I am going through the stats, for a thread header in the New Year, and Starmer's fall is reminiscent of Thatcher's first two years.

Starmer is no Thatcher or indeed Blair

Starmer won a bigger majority than Thatcher ever achieved.

Starmer made more net gains than Blair.

It’s an interesting comparison. Two years in, the Thatcher government seemed a failure.

Right now, the Starmer government looks a failure, and will probably look worse in July 2026 (the local elections that year will be hideous for Labour).

But, three years on, the position was transformed.

Thatcher had a strategy.

Part of me genuinely wonders if Starmer is doing a form of cosplay where he thinks if he's making himself really unpopular 6 months in it's because he's doing the right thing and exercising good governance and the electorate will come round and he'll inevitably win a second term.

There's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

That's why he is unpopular, more than anything. People like you (no offence) were always going to descend into hysterics when Labour got back in government. What he hasn't demonstrated to centrists/left wingers is any sort of mission or energy in the way that Thatcher did for centrists/right wingers back in the 80s.

There's a reason I've enjoyed Miliband and how much he has wound people up. He appears to be only person who is up for taking on the naysayers and has the courage of his convictions - and even then, what he's doing isn't particularly radical at all.

You think CCS is a good thing then and spending 22billion on it s worth it despite everyone who actually knows anything about CCS saying its performative bollocks?

I'm not that fussed about the government spending money on novel technologies, and my instinct is to welcome investment whenever it happens.

There's a chance, given current carbon emissions projections, that effective CCS is the only thing standing between the world and genuine climate disaster within my lifetime. On that basis CO2 disposal is worth a punt, perhaps.

It's the opportunity cost that concerns me. I'd spend it on 22,000 miles of cycle lane instead. Better still, in addition.

You welcome the Government spending money on [checks notes] ...anything?

Um, why? When that money by not being taxed at all could relieve pressure on businesses and keep the economy going.

I didn't say that. It's an unusual example of the government spending some cash on non-current spending outside of the SE of England, and if right-wingers welcome any kind of government spending it's typically on something like this.

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised you aren't super keen on it. People on my social media feeds are fuming because it's a big bung to legacy fossil fuel companies (private business), and might mean CCGT can keep burning gas for the rest of the century without contributing to emissions.

(To be fair on the Tories, they also pledged £20 billion on it).

Actually I am not universally opposed to it - I understand there is a proportion of agricultural field weathering, which I'm extremely interested in - for the side benefits as much as the capacity to draw down carbon. I am opposed to spending huge amounts burying CO2 in some sort of facility though. Because that's nuts. Far better to release it into the atmosphere. It's plant food.

Stereodog said:

kle4 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

'Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to end their war of words and call a New Year’s truce.

The Tory grandee urged both leaders to stop throwing “brickbats at each other” and “unite” to take on Labour.'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/32518318/kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage-membership-mogg/

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a twat of the first order. The fact that he was given a place on the front bench by his friend The Clown is one of the main reasons the Tories are in such a sorry state and that we have this economically illiterate Labour government

Boris made Rees-Mogg Leader of the House of Commons. Whilst it is not quite as low a role as I denigratingly joke that it is - suggesting it's role is merely to organise the business schedule of real ministers in the Commons - it is nonetheless not that significant a role compared to many others.

It took Liz Truss to trust Rees-Mogg enough to be given actual responsibility for a department as a Secretary of State. I find that telling.

But taking his comments on their own merits it is the all too frequent belief that Farage is really a Tory underneath, despiting opposing/influencing/undercutting them for 20 years, and so the 'solution' to unite with him a lot easier than the reality would indicate.

I thought Rees-Mogg as Leader of the House was an excellent appointment. Commons staff always loved him because he cared deeply about the arcanae of House proceedings and would spend ages chatting to Hansard Reporters and Vote Writers about their work. He claimed to be able to tell which Hansard Reporter had wrote up a particular debate which is supposed to be impossible. It's only when he was given control of a government department that things began to go wrong

I don't believe his love of arcanae is sincere because he invents radical new constitutional principles to suit himself (as when Boris was ousted), but it seemed a better fit for him - prominent and influential to show favour to him and that faction, but not significant in policy terms.

Boris had plenty of time to give him a department if he had wanted, there must have been a reason he didn't - even after being Leader, he was given a Minister of State job instead, one which involved pronouncements about Brexit more than policy or administrative work.

Elon telling someone to go "fuck yourself in the face" is a perfect ending for 2024.
https://x.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1872878446072000575