And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
Did America want to annex Grenada and make it part of the USA?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
I think if Trump continues on this course and the GOP get trounced in the 2026 midterms, he will either be impeached or Trump's Cabinet will remove him and replace him with VP Vance for the remainder of his term
I do not want our city centres to become museums of the past as a generality. The odd one, such as the Shambles in York, is fine as a tourist attraction but it is not a blue print for our current use.
Whilst the bleak concrete blocks of the 50s, 60s and 70s have nothing to commend them either I think it is for our current architects, planners and investors to find something genuinely interesting and new to replace them and going back to medieval structures seems to me, in the most part, to show a lack of imagination.
European countries managed to rebuild their cities in their old styles but modernised etc , we choose to go the American way and build concrete shit that lasts no time at all. Any old crap was allowed and most are falling to bits or already demolished.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
On the preservation argument (and: excellent header, @GarethoftheVale2 ), I feel that we have swung from a pre-WW2 too-relaxed attitude to one of excessive preservation.
If I had my way (and I accept it's an unpopular view with many), I'd abolish standard Grade II listings completely. We're now up to 2% of the entire housing stock being listed, almost all of it standard Grade II. Are one in fifty dwellings in the UK really "of special interest"?
Of the 380,000 or so listed buildings (in England alone), only 2.5% are Grade I and 5.8% Grade II* (Grade 2-special). Sure, retain these. In Oxfordshire, we'd have 381 Grade I and 694 Grade II* And we'd no longer have something like 12,000 Grade II listed buildings.
In addition, Conservation Officers can just arbitrarily slap a Grade II listing on a property and make redevelopment or improvement of it that much harder. In my ward, they did that to a ramshackle old shack (uninhabitable) that a resident inherited and proposed demolishing to build two new houses (actually habitable ones). Partway through the application, it got listed.
It took years and multiple reiterations of the plans until it was acceptable (reduced to merely rebuilding the one house) and that itself was abandoned when the heir ran out of money and settled up.
We don't need to live in a museum, as you put it.
Sorry, I'm definitely not with you there.
I totally support Grade II listings which include many beautiful buildings, one of which- in the past - I was fortunate to own.
They are fundamental to the historic fabric of so many of our cities, towns and villages - and what gives us value and identity as a country.
I do get and respect your view, but if I may: the proliferation of Grade II listings ends up making the status less and less special, as well as preserving in aspic more and more of the less special and less beautiful buildings.
Revisit Grade II buildings and if they're genuinely special and specially worth preserving unchanged, upgrade them on a case by case basis to Grade II*
The building in question wasn't listed until 2019; it wasn't seen as that special. Using up my allowance for the day, it's this one:
That's a photo from Google Maps, and I can attest that it's unchanged today - more than five years on. Still uninhabited. Still not habitable. And I don't really think it's that beautiful or special (I've been inside; it's a wreck in there). I'd say that giving this the same special status as the house you obviously cherished could actually cheapen the specialness of that Grade II listing.
But I fully understand if you still disagree; it'd be a boring place if we all agreed (even if I'm always right, of course... )
That looks a charming building worthy of preservation and in need of restoration to me.
I definitely wouldn't pull it down.
What we should do is for each property, work through the listing to work out why stuff is listed, which features actually matter for the listing, and then give everything else a status of "do what you like".
Two or three years ago I nearly bought a late 17th century farmstead, listed in the 80s. Now derelict, inside utterly trashed. As the rules stand, I would have had to sought listed building consent to remove the broken 1970s tile fireplaces from the living rooms, or demolish and rebuild the 1960s brick kitchen that had been badly built on the back. Given it's state, it should have had a listing which stated "External frontage and yard only" and let the owners do what they liked with the rest of it.
It's still derelict now, I suspect because the eventual new owner has found obtaining listing building consent to fix it remarkably difficult.
I have friends with a listed Victorian house in Wales who had listed building consent declined when they attempted to remove 1970s everest aluminum framed single glazed windows, and to replace them with double glazed units in an original style, on the basis that the listing status applies to the house as it was when it was listed, aluminum windows and all...!
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
There is a precedent for Greenland, as I've noted a few times. The Falklands in 1982.
Well done Martin. It's easier to avoid being publicly 'robust' about Musk but he's clearly made of sterner stuff. I'll try my best to enjoy his "grid walks" from now on despite finding them a bit of a toe-curler at times.
I managed to lighten the day of an HMRC employee yesterday. I was doing my wife's tax return which I do as her agent. For the second year her pension has been pre-filled in the employment section and because it is pre-filled if you try to change Yes to 'No' to employment in the employment section it won't let you. I reported this last year but nothing has happened. The results are the same, but I feel reluctant to basically lie on the form regarding employment and pension even though the results are the same. Anyway I have discovered a solution, which HMRC didn't know, which is you can go through the whole employment section anyway pretending you are an employee and then delete the whole section after completing it and then amend the pension section accordingly.
Anyway initially he thought I was complaining that the prefilled numbers were wrong rather than not being in the right places. I said 'To paraphrase Eric Morecambe the numbers are right but not necessarily in the right order'. He was amused. He said he would raise the issue, but I suspect nothing will happen. I assume when they get their copy of the P60 it gets flagged incorrectly as employment rather than pension
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
US-UK trade is pretty equal. There’s a lot of services, and most of the British goods heading for the US are high-end cars and F&B which are not substitutable for American goods. Rolls-Royce and Whisky!
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
I think if Trump continues on this course and the GOP get trounced in the 2026 midterms, he will either be impeached or Trump's Cabinet will remove him and replace him with Vance for the remainder of his term
All this warmongering talk must surely be unnerving the GOP isolationists, who presumably were looking for a respite from the Democrats' "warmongering" (aka providing a useful but insufficient amount of defence equipment to a sovereign nation to allow it to resist an invasion). But by know we know the party will simply do a bit of doublethink and get in line.
But Trump is a flat track bully isn't he? Threatening countries that he knows cannot and will not threaten the US, while simpering pathetically whenever the subject of Putin comes up, and being extremely half-hearted in his approach to Xi.
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
There is already war against Ukraine, it might help Putin a little, but Putin didn't need Trump doing something crazy to do what he's done. I think the bigger issue will be Taiwan. If Trump really was nuts enough to invade and take control of the Panama Canal, and Panama is a place where China has invested a great deal, I think that China may be spurred into seizing Taiwan.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
What a complete dereliction of duty. Shouldn't Starmer resign?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
In Trumpland, self-determination is what he calls it when he decides not to pay taxes.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
That was more than 40 years ago. The US did not act alone (7 nations in the region took part). The action was not to increase US territory. The US did not annex Grenada and Grenada rapidly moved on to democratic elections. There had been a coup in Grenada and the governor-general of Grenada asked for the invasion to happen in response. This is to not to say the action was legal under international law, but there was some wriggle room to justify it.
An invasion of Panama would not be supported by any other countries. There is little apparent casus belli. The intent is to annex territory permanently. It is not comparable.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
Interesting. Goes against all my instincts! (First degree incorporated space science and I did some stuff thereafter, but I am a tad out of date. He does make Ariane look really stupid).
Most of the world has persisted in not reducing their launch costs.
In the case of Ariane it was partly politics and partly wilful blindness. While destroying the careers of anyone saying the word Themis…
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
Interesting. Goes against all my instincts! (First degree incorporated space science and I did some stuff thereafter, but I am a tad out of date. He does make Ariane look really stupid).
For ‘regular’ space transport, pretty much everything else is now either obsolete or massively overpriced.
Which obviously gives another set of problems, Ariane and the various Chinese efforts will continue because they’re state-backed.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
It's on days like today that the total lack of gender balance on this forum is laid bare.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
The actions of the current government, especially the budget, are all about increasing inflation and artificially maintaining higher base rates in the coming year or so. There's no hiding. It's very much self-inflicted.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
There is a precedent for Greenland, as I've noted a few times. The Falklands in 1982.
Greenland was occupied by the USA 1941 to 1945, during ze war.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
Interesting. Goes against all my instincts! (First degree incorporated space science and I did some stuff thereafter, but I am a tad out of date. He does make Ariane look really stupid).
For ‘regular’ space transport, pretty much everything else is now either obsolete or massively overpriced.
Which obviously gives another set of problems, Ariane and the various Chinese efforts will continue because they’re state-backed.
The Chinese are pivoting to full reusability, Meth-LOX, stainless steel etc. Much of it blatant copies in a rather childish manner.
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
Eyeballs from people who can barely afford to get the bus aren't very useful. Hate watching the as is also not very useful. One of the best leading metrics for success/failure of products is the YouTube like/dislike ratio and it was off the charts bad for the new Jag. Whoever you spoke to will be out of a job this time next year when the pre orders don't come through.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
It's on days like today that the total lack of gender balance on this forum is laid bare.
A few of this morning's sub-threads:
"let's play war games!" "space rockets!" "what model of Jag is that?" "they're reformulating Formula 1 tracks!"
Though the usual decided lack of football chat, to be fair.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Yes, he has. Russian stocks of all sorts of equipment have been run down drastically during the war and are pretty near exhausted now, with minimal capacity for domestic replacement (hence Iranian and North Korean supplies - the crucial question now being China).
Russia is only 'winning' in the sense of advancing because it is expending huge numbers of men and materiel to gain small and strategically irrelevant amounts of land - around 0.5% of Ukraine last year in return for about 400,000 casualties. That is not 'winning'. Winning would be progressing along a path towards victory but those losses are unsustainable because you run out of capacity before you reach your objectives. Not to mention the domestic effects, with an economy that is overheating while also suffering shortages. Russia is actually losing and will do so when its army runs out of things to fight with, or when domestic pressure reaches a point where the government can no longer conduct the war.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Man, some of you are taking Trump way too seriously. It's very clear he's trolling about Mexico, Canada, Panama and Greenland. I think he may buy Greenland but the rest is literal trolling. Is it dignified, no, yet it's Trump and since when has he ever been dignified.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
You have just, unknowingly of course as usual, described global geopolitics.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
The actions of the current government, especially the budget, are all about increasing inflation and artificially maintaining higher base rates in the coming year or so. There's no hiding. It's very much self-inflicted.
This week's jump in yields is across the board and triggered by US data.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
"Ah, Grenada! Five hours of fire-fight, five weeks of surf!"
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
Eyeballs from people who can barely afford to get the bus aren't very useful. Hate watching the as is also not very useful. One of the best leading metrics for success/failure of products is the YouTube like/dislike ratio and it was off the charts bad for the new Jag. Whoever you spoke to will be out of a job this time next year when the pre orders don't come through.
We shall see - he has been in the game a while and seemed pretty happy. As he drove off in his new Landy.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
Greenland was occupied by the USA 1941 to 1945, during ze war.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
That was more than 40 years ago. The US did not act alone (7 nations in the region took part). The action was not to increase US territory. The US did not annex Grenada and Grenada rapidly moved on to democratic elections. There had been a coup in Grenada and the governor-general of Grenada asked for the invasion to happen in response. This is to not to say the action was legal under international law, but there was some wriggle room to justify it.
An invasion of Panama would not be supported by any other countries. There is little apparent casus belli. The intent is to annex territory permanently. It is not comparable.
Re: Grenada
A coup including the rather brutal murder of the head of government.
Since the invasion, multiple democratic elections, with changes of government. Notably, quite Cuba/Venezuela friendly.
Also very disappointed with PB. People are no longer being sent to Gammonland for reeducation when they don't affirm that Ukraine will win the war within the week.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Yes, I recall making the point repeatedly that Trump wasn’t as isolationist but just thought that American power should serve American interests.
In the same way Hitler just thought German power should serve German interests, or Stalin or Putin thought Russian power should serve Russian interests.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Agree , he will do what makes him money or fans his ego. More faces than the town clock.
Man, some of you are taking Trump way too seriously. It's very clear he's trolling about Mexico, Canada, Panama and Greenland. I think he may buy Greenland but the rest is literal trolling. Is it dignified, no, yet it's Trump and since when has he ever been dignified.
Yes, he’s spent decades trolling and everyone can get clicks from fake outrage based on what he says. Look instead at what he actually does in office.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
I'm not sure what species of washing this morning's Trump cheerleading counts as: precedent-washing perhaps. Or just the latest iteration of sanewashing. Whatever it is, there is very obviously an attempt by MAGA and its international fans to shift the Overton window so far that it's starting to hang off the side of the house.
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
Eyeballs from people who can barely afford to get the bus aren't very useful. Hate watching the as is also not very useful. One of the best leading metrics for success/failure of products is the YouTube like/dislike ratio and it was off the charts bad for the new Jag. Whoever you spoke to will be out of a job this time next year when the pre orders don't come through.
When you buy your next car, what make and model will it be?
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
There is of course an element of Mandy Rice-Davies about that, but deficits are high and there's no obvious sign of them reducing.
It's one reason why I'm highly sceptical about this '6500 extra teachers claim.' I just don't see how the money can be freed up when everything extra will have to go into sorting out existing problems.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Ronald Reagan blindsided Margaret Thatcher over the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada in 1983, giving her less than 12 hours' notice of the attack, Downing Street papers reveal.
"Ah, Grenada! Five hours of fire-fight, five weeks of surf!"
(1) HMTQ was *not* amused by the invasion of one of her realms without warning let alone permish. (2) THis makes interesting reading ...
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
Gaza is mentioned as much as covid these days, ie never.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Almost $500bn :-)
There was a sale of secondary shares last month that valued SpaceX at $350bn and Musk owns about 40% of it.
Personally, if I was Musk, I would be selling of my Tesla shares but holding onto the SpaceX ones.
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Also very disappointed with PB. People are no longer being sent to Gammonland for reeducation when they don't affirm that Ukraine will win the war within the week.
You must be delighted at the #chanification of this forum. It's packed with "realists" now who are delighting in affirming that might is right, empires rock and national sovereignty is just a naive liberal myth.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
You have just, unknowingly of course as usual, described global geopolitics.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
Well first, Noriega held an “election”
Despite cheating “like a professional wrestling villain” (in the words of PJ O’Rourke), he lost.
He then murdered the winner.
This led to some protests. Which then included beating up the VP candidate (under Panamanian law, the replacement for the murdered winner)
Then there were some incidents with US troops on bases in Panama.
Noriega became very upset that everyone didn’t like him. And declared war.
The Americans came in and did their thing.
And left - leaving the elected VP running the country.
In the aftermath of the invasion, 90% of Panamanians approved, according to a poll.
Man, some of you are taking Trump way too seriously. It's very clear he's trolling about Mexico, Canada, Panama and Greenland. I think he may buy Greenland but the rest is literal trolling. Is it dignified, no, yet it's Trump and since when has he ever been dignified.
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
Eyeballs from people who can barely afford to get the bus aren't very useful. Hate watching the as is also not very useful. One of the best leading metrics for success/failure of products is the YouTube like/dislike ratio and it was off the charts bad for the new Jag. Whoever you spoke to will be out of a job this time next year when the pre orders don't come through.
When you buy your next car, what make and model will it be?
Probably another Audi, been looking at the A8. If the Sony/Honda car is available to buy in the UK then I'll look into that too.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
You have just, unknowingly of course as usual, described global geopolitics.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
I'm not sure what species of washing this morning's Trump cheerleading counts as: precedent-washing perhaps. Or just the latest iteration of sanewashing. Whatever it is, there is very obviously an attempt by MAGA and its international fans to shift the Overton window so far that it's starting to hang off the side of the house.
Or perhaps it’s not Trump cheerleading but gentle banter and not being overly serious and that labelling anyone or any comments that say anything you disagree with as being part of international MAGA is a bit twattish - I expected more from you really.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
And I'd guess even if you'd provided evidence it would still have been rejected? I simply cannot understand how this is allowable. There really ought to be a higher power to appeal to.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
Interesting. Goes against all my instincts! (First degree incorporated space science and I did some stuff thereafter, but I am a tad out of date. He does make Ariane look really stupid).
For ‘regular’ space transport, pretty much everything else is now either obsolete or massively overpriced.
Which obviously gives another set of problems, Ariane and the various Chinese efforts will continue because they’re state-backed.
The Chinese are pivoting to full reusability, Meth-LOX, stainless steel etc. Much of it blatant copies in a rather childish manner.
Also very disappointed with PB. People are no longer being sent to Gammonland for reeducation when they don't affirm that Ukraine will win the war within the week.
You must be delighted at the #chanification of this forum. It's packed with "realists" now who are delighting in affirming that might is right, empires rock and national sovereignty is just a naive liberal myth.
I am and always was a pragmatist and try to avoid emotions when assessing such situations. There is no such thing as inevitability in world events - just because we want something to happen doesn't mean it will happen.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Take Scotland pretty please
So Trumpian ownership is preferable to English ownership. I thought you were an advocate of independence rather than "a new boss who is the same as the old boss".
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Yes, he has. Russian stocks of all sorts of equipment have been run down drastically during the war and are pretty near exhausted now, with minimal capacity for domestic replacement (hence Iranian and North Korean supplies - the crucial question now being China).
Russia is only 'winning' in the sense of advancing because it is expending huge numbers of men and materiel to gain small and strategically irrelevant amounts of land - around 0.5% of Ukraine last year in return for about 400,000 casualties. That is not 'winning'. Winning would be progressing along a path towards victory but those losses are unsustainable because you run out of capacity before you reach your objectives. Not to mention the domestic effects, with an economy that is overheating while also suffering shortages. Russia is actually losing and will do so when its army runs out of things to fight with, or when domestic pressure reaches a point where the government can no longer conduct the war.
That would be encouraging if it were not for the fact that Trump seems to be indicating that he is going to sacrifice all these years of enormous sacrifice by the Ukrainians to make a Putin-friendly deal. IE - refusing to allow Ukraine membership of NATO while sanctioning Russian expropriation of Ukrainian territory. Nauseating.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
Is there any chance we can persuade him to take NI off our hands? “Our” in this context is probably the UK and the RoI….
Take Scotland pretty please
So Trumpian ownership is preferable to English ownership. I thought you were an advocate of independence rather than "a new boss who is the same as the old boss".
Well, Trump is Scottish.
(I hope all our Scottish posters will forgive me for raising this!)
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
Veluxes look good but they are a bit crap in practice. You can't have curtains, the slides get mouldy, and they are noisy when it rains. Plus you feel really hemmed in.
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
And I'd guess even if you'd provided evidence it would still have been rejected? I simply cannot understand how this is allowable. There really ought to be a higher power to appeal to.
There is. You can always appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. But it can be expensive if you're not confident of your case. A friend of mine got planning rejected to put a fence up and appealed to PINS. The Inspector expressed some exasperation that he had had to travel all the way to Manchester to look at 'quite a nice fence' and awarded costs against the Council (do I mean that? i.e. the Council had to pay for the whole exercise). But if you're not confident of your way around the system it risks being expensive.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
The reason is they want it to be lost in the noise of the next general election campaign, so they don't have to do/ pay anything and can blame obstruction on others
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
Similar experience ten or so years ago. Individual planning officer with own very strict and frankly weird ideas about what is "in keeping". Roof had to be redesigned. Architect furious. As an aside he told me all architects hate planning officers with a passion.
The oddity was at the time the street in question was a bit of a mess of all sorts of styles both old (victorian) and very modern. There was no overall style or "keeping" imho. Since then it has got "worse" if that is the word. Loads of extensions and couple of complete rebuilds that are completely not even remotely in any kind of keeping.
There is even a brand new eco house (passive whats it job) in next street which I think is stunning but looks completely out of step with anything else - might as well have landed from Mars.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Where does he get the cash flow to do what SpaceX does without going to market? I can see it is profitable, but the upfront investments are massive and never-ending. They’ve never consolidated around one successful launch vehicle.
They have cost-engineered the hell out of space flight, in a way that’s never been done before. It’s an astonishing business. When your rocket costs you $10m to launch, and the competitor rocket costs $300m to launch, there’s a fair amount of scope for making money in the middle.
Yes but if your failure rate is 20-30% and you keep trying to innovate, I am still amazed the cash flow works without someone with deep pockets having a lot of patience. But then I assumed Meta and Google would run out of other people’s money so what do I know?
SpaceX is selling F9 launches for $50-60 million. They cost them less than $20 million. Development was paid off long ago.
F9 is now proven to be one of the most reliable rockets built to this point. Insurance for a payload on F9 is rock bottom in price now.
In addition, when you launch, all kind of services beyond bolting the satellite to the rocket are required. These are extra. The markup on those is very nice.
Military launches cost more because of the huge paperwork requirements. But again, SpaceX streamlined this - they bid less than others and still make a profit.
Dragon for NASA is similar - unlike Boeing, they are making money.
Starlink is now making money.
They are spending $1-2 Billion a year on developing Starship/Super Heavy. And that is not even eating all of the profits. Even before the fact that NASA are part funding development for the Artemis lunar landing program.
The marginal cost of a Starship/Super Heavy launch is estimated at $90 million. Fully expended. Which is less than the price of many medium lift expendable rockets. If they start reusing the first stage, that marginal cost drops to $30 million, or so.
Interesting. Goes against all my instincts! (First degree incorporated space science and I did some stuff thereafter, but I am a tad out of date. He does make Ariane look really stupid).
For ‘regular’ space transport, pretty much everything else is now either obsolete or massively overpriced.
Which obviously gives another set of problems, Ariane and the various Chinese efforts will continue because they’re state-backed.
The Chinese are pivoting to full reusability, Meth-LOX, stainless steel etc. Much of it blatant copies in a rather childish manner.
Or pragmatic manner.
Some of it nonsensical - one explanation is that some Chinese companies are following the scams like ARCA, with a CGI dressing on top.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
Oh look, it's one of those one-liner quizzical questions.
Because it almost certainly increases the oil price, and because it creates chaos in the West which as we all know your mate enjoys immensely.
Where you see chaos, others would see vitality and the spirit of enterprise. If the West becomes a museum then it will lose the future.
Bullying is not 'vitality' and the 'spirit of enterprise'. It is bullying. And Trump is bullying various countries.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
It's on days like today that the total lack of gender balance on this forum is laid bare.
A few of this morning's sub-threads:
"let's play war games!" "space rockets!" "what model of Jag is that?" "they're reformulating Formula 1 tracks!"
Though the usual decided lack of football chat, to be fair.
Sunil's retrospective for 2024:
January 2024 Milford South Jn to Castleford (rare track now with regular service)
May 2024 Wandsworth Road to Battersea Park both ways in daylight. (rare track since 2012) Scarborough North Bay (Peasholm to Scalby Mills) (heritage) Scarborough Central Tramway (cliff lift) (heritage) Scarborough Spa Cliff Lift (heritage)
June 2024 Kensal Rise to Willesden Jnc Low Level (rare track) Tower to Blackpool North (tram) (new route) Pleasant Street to Talbot Square (tram) (new route) Kirkcaldy to Leven (new route)
July 2024 Kirkby to Headbolt Lane (remodelled track via new station) Headbolt Lane to Rainford (remodelled track via new station) Marsh Farm railway (attraction) Mangapps to Old Heath (Mangapps Farm) (heritage)
August 2024 Gaer Jn to Park Jn (Newport to Pye Corner direct) (rare track now with regular service) Lichfield Trent Valley to Wichnor Jn (XC diversion Brum to Burton) (rare track)
September 2024 Clitheroe to Hellifield (rare track, Saturdays only) Foxhall Jn to Didcot West Curve Jn (Swindon to Oxford service, eastbound only) (rare track, Saturdays only)
October 2024 Glinton Jn to Marholm Jn via Werrington diveunder (rare track-ish) Sleaford avoider both ways in daylight (dark southbound only in 2019) (rare track) Gainsborough Lea Rd to Doncaster (northbound; southbound only in 2017, 2019) Barnetby to Gainsborough Trent Jns (southbound; northbound only done in 2019) (rare track with once daily service)
November 2024 Reedham to Great Yarmouth eastbound (westbound only in 2016) (rare track) GWR diversions from/to Euston: Willesden West London Jn to Acton Wells Jns (rare track) Acton Wells Jns to Acton West Jn (via goods line alongside Acton Main Line) (rare track)
December 2024 Beaulieu Park (upcoming) station new up loop (new track)
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
Veluxes look good but they are a bit crap in practice. You can't have curtains, the slides get mouldy, and they are noisy when it rains. Plus you feel really hemmed in.
The Veluxe blinds, that can be added, are quite good now.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Almost $500bn :-)
There was a sale of secondary shares last month that valued SpaceX at $350bn and Musk owns about 40% of it.
Personally, if I was Musk, I would be selling of my Tesla shares but holding onto the SpaceX ones.
Ha yes, Tesla is likely to get eaten by the Chinese to some extent in the next few years, SpaceX is a decade ahead of everyone else, and Western governments and companies are never giving anything sensitive to the Chinese any time soon.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
Yes, "transactional" means tit for tat. If the other party fulfils their end of the deal, you fulfil yours. If they don't, you retaliate. It may entail very tough bargaining, with no great liking for each other, but the expectation is that each party is a good actor.
Trump's approach is that every deal has a winner and a loser. And, if you can ratfuck the other party, so much the better, it's "just good business." And, people who display good faith and honour, are just "suckers and losers."
Musk is very clearly high on power in a way, or to an extent, that he hasn't been before.
Talking of the male bias amongst our PBers more sympathetic to Trump, his response to Trudeau this morning on Twitter has been "Girl, you have no say, you're not even Governor of Canada any more".
Those thinking that Trump (and now Musk) are all.talk with Canada, are forgetting that it's Musk himself who has an extensive personal history and connection with Canada, not Trump.
Occupying Canada had no mention in Trump's first term, whereas Greenland was.
For those seeking betting opportunities next Chancellor may well be worth a tilt
Prime Ministers who fire Chancellors usually have a short life expectancy (Truss, Thatcher, Macmillan, Eden). I think the only one who made it past a year after forcing out a Chancellor since 1951 is Major.
Much more common in recent years is for Chancellors to hang on despite efforts to fire them (Hammond, Darling, possibly Barber).
He could I suppose move Reeves to the Foreign Office but sacking Lammy would not be a great look either.
On topic, I have some sympathy with the general sentiments of the article but I also have deep scepticism with anything that involves council planning and/or regeneration, both of which are usually designed to stop things happening or indulge in officers' or councillors pet plans.
Planning Officers, in particular, have a love of micromanaging development, and doing it badly. The result is extra unnecessary cost and poor outcomes. In general, the better option would be that - safety concerns aside - Planning is best to simply leave well alone. That is, after all, how these original buildings were created: they didn't need external committees to approve their design or to license whether they could go up. The owners just got on with it.
That said, there is something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts but that can be achieved by soft power and informal engagement as much as by paper-pushing....
In my (admittedly limited) experience, I've dealt with both pragmatic, helpful planning officers, and intransigent jobsworths of the kind you describe.
A new statutory code of conduct for planning officers might be a quicker and easier way of addressing that, rather than trying to rip up the system, which would mean a long and potentially losing debate with the NIMBY tendency?
My sister had an odd experience with planning. Had an extension designed including a half hipped roof. Planning officer said they couldn't have that style of roof as it was not in keeping with the area. This was utter bullshit as there are similar rooves within a few hundred yards of the house. Utterly weird, can only assume this guy didn't like them. But. He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
We had a dormer rejected as being out of keeping with the area despite dozens on our and surrounding streets. Instead they wanted a Velux. Planning is a bizarre world.
Veluxes look good but they are a bit crap in practice. You can't have curtains, the slides get mouldy, and they are noisy when it rains. Plus you feel really hemmed in.
The Veluxe blinds, that can be added, are quite good now.
That's what I meant by "slides" (sorry, wrong word?). You can't clean them nor take them down to clean them nor replace them (I think?). So if they get mouldy or dirty, you be stuck in a room with diagonal walls and mouldy things. Not good.
Man, some of you are taking Trump way too seriously. It's very clear he's trolling about Mexico, Canada, Panama and Greenland. I think he may buy Greenland but the rest is literal trolling. Is it dignified, no, yet it's Trump and since when has he ever been dignified.
Yes, he’s spent decades trolling and everyone can get clicks from fake outrage based on what he says. Look instead at what he actually does in office.
Well we will when he does. Not long to wait now. And if he ends up not triggering a protectionist downturn in global trade, not being a corrupt autocrat and persecuting minorities at home, and not handing Putin a big win in Ukraine etc etc, that will be great. What are the odds, do you think?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
WHo benefits from the US invading the Panama canal zone? Putin. I can't really think of anyone else. The US doesn't. Panama doesn't. International trade doesn't. China doesn't. Europe doesn't. Ukraine certainly doesn't.
I guess maybe Netanyahu does as well.
How does it benefit Putin?
It provides cover for his military action against Ukraine. Either we live in a world where big powers can just invade territory they want or we don't.
It hurts his enemies, undermines NATO and harms their economies.
Putin has a list as long as your arm of Western precedents for his actions. He doesn't need a new one to provide any cover.
He has nothing comparable to the US invading Panama (or Greenland or Canada), should that come to pass.
Apart from the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the US invading Canada (1775 and 1812) I can’t think of any precedents for the US invasion of Panama or Canada.
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
In 1989, Panama had declared war on the US. That kinda gave them cover for military action.
I'm not sure what species of washing this morning's Trump cheerleading counts as: precedent-washing perhaps. Or just the latest iteration of sanewashing. Whatever it is, there is very obviously an attempt by MAGA and its international fans to shift the Overton window so far that it's starting to hang off the side of the house.
Or perhaps it’s not Trump cheerleading but gentle banter and not being overly serious and that labelling anyone or any comments that say anything you disagree with as being part of international MAGA is a bit twattish - I expected more from you really.
Oh in that case I'm just engaging in gentle banter too. That seems to be the forum get out of jail card. If arguing that invading Greenland would be showing the spirit of enterprise = gentle banter, then anything anyone says is clearly also gentle banter.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Phillipson reckons the Tory amendment passing would kill her child/school bill "stone dead" - is that actually the case. Does the Conservative amendment actually contain an effective kill clause in it, or is it just that Labour would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended by that particular amendment ?
Today’s was a brilliant PB Header to read over second breakfast. 🫡
Going off Topic, sorry. But i’m not on any banned subject of big grooming gang clear blue water policy between Labour and Conservative, dominating UK politics this week and some time to come. Though in immigration policy - which is surely a different subject than the banned one - we all suspect, regardless of dismal 13 year record on immigration, going into 3rd May 2029 promising 0% immigration from countries with alien medieval culture is now huge election vote winner for Conservatives?
When Elon Musk has bought Liverpool FC franchise (paying over the odds or maybe current owners keen to take his money) what will he change the clubs name to? Will they play some home games stateside? Is he the sort to go into dressing room for pep talks, or interfere in team selection? We don’t really know much about Elon Musk in UK, but through his ownership of Liverpool FC we will learn a lot more.
His team plays again tonight, will they provide yet more evidence they are becoming tired and leggy, without press and movement off ball their performances will be nothing special second half of season? 🤔
Good morning
At least I hope they do not blame the ball as Arteta did for Arsenal losing last night
Utterly bizarre
Isak started, Saka has operation on torn hamstring. Simples. Artetas own fault for relying too much on Saka for his teams cutting edge.
But it’s the same with Newcastle. As soon as Isak breaks down, any moment, Newcastle will go back to huffing and puffing with no cutting edge. Isak probably won’t play the cup final against Liverpool, having got the team there - he didn’t go to a bigger club to start with because of his awful absence record every season.
Same with Liverpool too. Over reliant on Salah for cutting edge. Without Salah where will their cutting edge come from?
Battle Royal Sundays game now. Any predictions from you? You would still favour Arsenal Sunday wouldn’t you?
Phillipson reckons the Tory amendment passing would kill her child/school bill "stone dead" - is that actually the case. Does the Conservative amendment actually contain an effective kill clause in it, or is it just that Labour would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended by that particular amendment ?
Labour would refuse to pass it. The bill would still be fine.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
I think if Trump continues on this course and the GOP get trounced in the 2026 midterms, he will either be impeached or Trump's Cabinet will remove him and replace him with Vance for the remainder of his term
All this warmongering talk must surely be unnerving the GOP isolationists, who presumably were looking for a respite from the Democrats' "warmongering" (aka providing a useful but insufficient amount of defence equipment to a sovereign nation to allow it to resist an invasion). But by know we know the party will simply do a bit of doublethink and get in line.
But Trump is a flat track bully isn't he? Threatening countries that he knows cannot and will not threaten the US, while simpering pathetically whenever the subject of Putin comes up, and being extremely half-hearted in his approach to Xi.
Trump wants an economic not military war with Xi, hence the extra tariffs he will impose on Chinese imports.
Putin he sees as a fellow white nationalist so wants neither a military nor economic war with him
Phillipson reckons the Tory amendment passing would kill her child/school bill "stone dead" - is that actually the case. Does the Conservative amendment actually contain an effective kill clause in it, or is it just that Labour would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended by that particular amendment ?
Since it is not going to pass, I would suggest she is jumping on a convenient passing bandwagon, which she often does.
On Trump, the bigger question is what he might do or not do wrt China/Taiwan.
That issue is without doubt coming down the line and perhaps his unpredictable bonkersness might be a deterrent to Xi. Or. The Chinese might think oh no he wouldn't.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
btw for all you frothing, string-back gloved, gammon-faced, Clark shoed, sheepskin coat wearing motherfuckers, I met some senior JLR exec over the hols and he said that the new Jaguar ad had had a record number of eyeballs and they were delighted with it and if you didn't like it Jaguar wasn't for you and they don't want you as a customer.
Eyeballs from people who can barely afford to get the bus aren't very useful. Hate watching the as is also not very useful. One of the best leading metrics for success/failure of products is the YouTube like/dislike ratio and it was off the charts bad for the new Jag. Whoever you spoke to will be out of a job this time next year when the pre orders don't come through.
When you buy your next car, what make and model will it be?
Probably another Audi, been looking at the A8. If the Sony/Honda car is available to buy in the UK then I'll look into that too.
If you do get the Audi barge, please select the optional indicators.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
I think we'll all chuckle if we hear Trump described as an 'isolationist' again. He's surely planning the greatest land conquests in US history.
Texas? Louisiana Purchase?
Canada, Panama, Greenland
and now a hint at the UK by his sidekick and he has mentioned invading Mexico not that long ago.
And he isn't in office yet. I think that wins on both area and population.
Look out Australia I think he is after you next.
Off course it will all come to nought. I expect his presidency will be a shambles of infighting, lots of noise and nothing will actually happen. I hope so anyway.
I think if Trump continues on this course and the GOP get trounced in the 2026 midterms, he will either be impeached or Trump's Cabinet will remove him and replace him with Vance for the remainder of his term
All this warmongering talk must surely be unnerving the GOP isolationists, who presumably were looking for a respite from the Democrats' "warmongering" (aka providing a useful but insufficient amount of defence equipment to a sovereign nation to allow it to resist an invasion). But by know we know the party will simply do a bit of doublethink and get in line.
But Trump is a flat track bully isn't he? Threatening countries that he knows cannot and will not threaten the US, while simpering pathetically whenever the subject of Putin comes up, and being extremely half-hearted in his approach to Xi.
Trump wants an economic not military war with Xi, hence the extra tariffs he will impose on Chinese imports.
Putin he sees as a fellow white nationalist so wants neither a military nor economic war with him
I salute your indefatigable straight bat and unwillingness to indulge in "gentle banter" about our new Duce.
Phillipson reckons the Tory amendment passing would kill her child/school bill "stone dead" - is that actually the case. Does the Conservative amendment actually contain an effective kill clause in it, or is it just that Labour would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended by that particular amendment ?
Since it is not going to pass, I would suggest she is jumping on a convenient passing bandwagon, which she often does.
There is a certain irony in this, of course...
I know it's not going to pass, but does the Tory amendment actually kill the bill off ? Or is it just that the Gov't would be unwilling to proceed with the bill as amended to force a new public enquiry ?
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
You have just, unknowingly of course as usual, described global geopolitics.
And your point being? ...
It's not a different thing. It is the thing.
Ah, so I sense you're saying that geopolitics is largely transactional. Yes, I think that's true. Eye to eye here, you and me.
Like Leon, Piers has been following developments in the podcast space where it turns out star presenters can be biggest part of the brand, eg Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and that footballer.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
Yes, "transactional" means tit for tat. If the other party fulfils their end of the deal, you fulfil yours. If they don't, you retaliate. It may entail very tough bargaining, with no great liking for each other, but the expectation is that each party is a good actor.
Trump's approach is that every deal has a winner and a loser. And, if you can ratfuck the other party, so much the better, it's "just good business." And, people who display good faith and honour, are just "suckers and losers."
Which is where he's wrong about business.
Good business creates a "win win" and good longlasting relationships.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Otoh Putin must be feeling pretty pleased with himself. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria and the resultant millions of refugees helped Brexit over the line and boosted the pro-Putin far right in Europe. Invading Ukraine in 2022 boosted inflation and helped Trump over the line. We've now got a US president-elect threatening war with Denmark, and saying Russia shouldn't have to put up with NATO countries on its doorstep.
OTOH, he’s massively degraded Russia’s military.
Has he though? It seems that Russia's conventional forces at the start of this war were actually fairly rubbish, but now Russia seems to be slowly winning against Western-supplied Ukraine. It looks increasingly likely that a shit Trump-imposed 'peace' will allow Putin to claim that Russia defeated the West.
Yes, he has. Russian stocks of all sorts of equipment have been run down drastically during the war and are pretty near exhausted now, with minimal capacity for domestic replacement (hence Iranian and North Korean supplies - the crucial question now being China).
Russia is only 'winning' in the sense of advancing because it is expending huge numbers of men and materiel to gain small and strategically irrelevant amounts of land - around 0.5% of Ukraine last year in return for about 400,000 casualties. That is not 'winning'. Winning would be progressing along a path towards victory but those losses are unsustainable because you run out of capacity before you reach your objectives. Not to mention the domestic effects, with an economy that is overheating while also suffering shortages. Russia is actually losing and will do so when its army runs out of things to fight with, or when domestic pressure reaches a point where the government can no longer conduct the war.
That would be encouraging if it were not for the fact that Trump seems to be indicating that he is going to sacrifice all these years of enormous sacrifice by the Ukrainians to make a Putin-friendly deal. IE - refusing to allow Ukraine membership of NATO while sanctioning Russian expropriation of Ukrainian territory. Nauseating.
Trump cannot make such a deal if Ukraine is willing to fight on. Europe needs to step up to fill the gap. Unfortunately, it seems even more in fear of Trump than of Putin.
Im trying to figure out what youll do when Musk buys Liverpool FC
Has Musk shown any interest whatsoever in sport?
He hadnt shown much interest in politics until about 18 months ago.
His dad says he's more likely to buy Man Utd
When you have $400bn and time on your hands you do pretty much what you fancy
That's his net worth, before capital gains taxes.
His only really liquid assets are his Tesla shares, which he's been gently selling to fund Twitter losses.
I'm sure he could sell some more shares to purchase Liverpool or Manchester United if he wanted to. But - candidly - I don't see it. It doesn't fit his personality at all. He wants to be the star, making the decisions, and making things work, he doesn't want to be overshadowed by Mo Salah.
So, my money is against him buying a sports team.
Dont be silly Robert, if he needs liquidity he'll have banks falling over themselves to give him a loan.
Well, when he's needed liquidity to buy Twitter, and then to subsidize his losses, he's chosen to sell Tesla shares over borrowing from the bank: he's offloaded more than $40bn worth in the last three years.
How many shares does he hold in SpaceX, which is also still private and must be a $500bn company? Wouldnt’ be too difficult to get someone like the Saudis in on that business, giving him a massive pile of actual cash.
Almost $500bn :-)
There was a sale of secondary shares last month that valued SpaceX at $350bn and Musk owns about 40% of it.
Personally, if I was Musk, I would be selling of my Tesla shares but holding onto the SpaceX ones.
If you were Musk, you presumably wouldn't have spent 11 hours yesterday tweeting.
UK 10 year gilt prices just reached 4.724%. A few weeks before the budget, they were in the 3.7%'s.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
A lot of that move reflects inflation and base rate expectations. We could really do with a downward move in inflation.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
Sky analysis referred to the huge debt piles worldwide and Trump's inflationary policies, but did also say that Reeves budget has made it worse for the UK by prioritising above inflation public sector wage rises
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
The default option for Labour is to borrow more. Clearly that is going to be difficult to sell to the markets to put it mildly, but that is where their instinct lies. Obviously that holds a big risk of backfiring spectacularly.
She is turning into Labour's very own slow-burn Liz Truss.
Sunak & Hunt snuffed out the Truss/Kwarteng bondfire quickly enough. This situation seems altogether worse. There's no obvious will or desire to correct the obvious errors here by Labour and the general situation (For borrowing) has worsened globally since Truss in the long term.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
The only way to take the Panama Canal back is through investment to cure its lack of freshwater. Water levels in 2024 were at 110 year lows. This means the largest vessels are at risk of grounding.
It would be very Trumpian for Panama to be invaded - for an asset whose time has been and gone. Just the threa will likely spur attempts to build alternatives, such as through Nicaragua
or (perhaps less likely to be intimidated by threat of invasion), through Mexico's Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT). This is a much cheaper option (US $7.5 billion), by rather than building a canal that dries up, instead building rail links to transport cargo containers across this narrow point of Mexico.
There’s a nice sort of symmetry with our own Suez adventure here.
Panama = Suez Greenland = the Falklands
Both spelled disaster for the invading government.
I find it staggering that the Tory administration of 2010-2015 was so unprepared for all this.
Not only was Trump already in view in 2015 when the Referendum was called, but its campaign.was conducted in tandem with Trumpites. Now not only does Trump want to remove the last vestiges of British and French influence in North America and occupy an EU nation, but his sidekick also wants to take.more immediate control over Britain itself. It was the biggest British strategic blunder in 75 years.
Yet Trump's main targets for tariffs are now the EU, China, Mexico and at least until Poilievre gets in, Canada. Post Brexit UK is ironically at the back of the queue for the President elect's tariffs
You hope
He is so unpredictable how can you tell what he is going to do? If he makes a Treaty, will he stick to it? You can't enter in to Treaties with countries unless you are fairly confident they will abide by them. This is why talk of a negotiated settlement over Ukraine is so much BS. Who would trust Putin's Russia to keep to its side of the bargain?
Trump may surprise on the upside, but on form you would have to question his trustworthiness.
Trump being "transactional" is another of the meaningless euphemisms so often bandied about in commentary seeking to make sense of his utterings.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
Yes, "transactional" means tit for tat. If the other party fulfils their end of the deal, you fulfil yours. If they don't, you retaliate. It may entail very tough bargaining, with no great liking for each other, but the expectation is that each party is a good actor.
Trump's approach is that every deal has a winner and a loser. And, if you can ratfuck the other party, so much the better, it's "just good business." And, people who display good faith and honour, are just "suckers and losers."
Which is where he's wrong about business.
Good business creates a "win win" and good longlasting relationships.
Screw business, it is where Trump is wrong on international trade.
Comments
But yes, Greenland no precedent.
Anyway initially he thought I was complaining that the prefilled numbers were wrong rather than not being in the right places. I said 'To paraphrase Eric Morecambe the numbers are right but not necessarily in the right order'. He was amused. He said he would raise the issue, but I suspect nothing will happen. I assume when they get their copy of the P60 it gets flagged incorrectly as employment rather than pension
Will be interesting to see where the cuts are going to come from, as the government runs out of fiscal headroom. Or what tax increases will be imposed, despite a promise not to. Not looking good.
But Trump is a flat track bully isn't he? Threatening countries that he knows cannot and will not threaten the US, while simpering pathetically whenever the subject of Putin comes up, and being extremely half-hearted in his approach to Xi.
It's not far off Putin's own worldview: my country can get anything it wants. That's never proved stable for the world in the past, and it won't be in the future.
Then there's also the question of self-determination.
The frustrating thing is that we all know the long term will be deflationary, as global population ages and shrinks. Deflation will be a huge problem. Yet we have a short to medium term inflation bump to deal with.
An invasion of Panama would not be supported by any other countries. There is little apparent casus belli. The intent is to annex territory permanently. It is not comparable.
In the case of Ariane it was partly politics and partly wilful blindness. While destroying the careers of anyone saying the word Themis…
Which obviously gives another set of problems, Ariane and the various Chinese efforts will continue because they’re state-backed.
I certainly wouldn't "transact" with him. Nobody with any sense would. I might sign a piece of paper with a gun to my head but that's a different thing.
"let's play war games!"
"space rockets!"
"what model of Jag is that?"
"they're reformulating Formula 1 tracks!"
Though the usual decided lack of football chat, to be fair.
Russia is only 'winning' in the sense of advancing because it is expending huge numbers of men and materiel to gain small and strategically irrelevant amounts of land - around 0.5% of Ukraine last year in return for about 400,000 casualties. That is not 'winning'. Winning would be progressing along a path towards victory but those losses are unsustainable because you run out of capacity before you reach your objectives. Not to mention the domestic effects, with an economy that is overheating while also suffering shortages. Russia is actually losing and will do so when its army runs out of things to fight with, or when domestic pressure reaches a point where the government can no longer conduct the war.
David Brindle
@DavidJ_Brindle
·
1h
‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at
@CommonsHealth
https://x.com/DavidJ_Brindle/status/1876933237324263475
https://think.ing.com/articles/rates-spark-stars-align-for-record-gilt-yields/#:~:text=At 5.2% the 30Y gilt yield hit the,payrolls report the next key point of reference
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-08/last-time-bond-yields-surged-like-that-stock-markets-sank
It is becoming fairly obvious that due to world events, and Reeves poor judgment, she will have no option but to reduce spending including pay awards and probably seek more tax rises
The stark truth is we are all living beyond our means, pain is coming down the line for everyone and those hoping for a boost for Labour are likely to see quite the opposite
A coup including the rather brutal murder of the head of government.
Since the invasion, multiple democratic elections, with changes of government. Notably, quite Cuba/Venezuela friendly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy09e7w6jleo
There is of course an element of Mandy Rice-Davies about that, but deficits are high and there's no obvious sign of them reducing.
It's one reason why I'm highly sceptical about this '6500 extra teachers claim.' I just don't see how the money can be freed up when everything extra will have to go into sorting out existing problems.
(2) THis makes interesting reading ...
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2023/october/fortunate-victory-0
There was a sale of secondary shares last month that valued SpaceX at $350bn and Musk owns about 40% of it.
Personally, if I was Musk, I would be selling of my Tesla shares but holding onto the SpaceX ones.
But.
He actually made suggestions about how to redesign the extension (effectively became a different project, extending from the kitchen rather than the lounge) that ended up working far better than the original plan would have.
Weird.
Despite cheating “like a professional wrestling villain” (in the words of PJ O’Rourke), he lost.
He then murdered the winner.
This led to some protests. Which then included beating up the VP candidate (under Panamanian law, the replacement for the murdered winner)
Then there were some incidents with US troops on bases in Panama.
Noriega became very upset that everyone didn’t like him. And declared war.
The Americans came in and did their thing.
And left - leaving the elected VP running the country.
In the aftermath of the invasion, 90% of Panamanians approved, according to a poll.
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data
Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs
Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners
Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
(I hope all our Scottish posters will forgive me for raising this!)
A friend of mine got planning rejected to put a fence up and appealed to PINS. The Inspector expressed some exasperation that he had had to travel all the way to Manchester to look at 'quite a nice fence' and awarded costs against the Council (do I mean that? i.e. the Council had to pay for the whole exercise). But if you're not confident of your way around the system it risks being expensive.
The oddity was at the time the street in question was a bit of a mess of all sorts of styles both old (victorian) and very modern. There was no overall style or "keeping" imho. Since then it has got "worse" if that is the word. Loads of extensions and couple of complete rebuilds that are completely not even remotely in any kind of keeping.
There is even a brand new eco house (passive whats it job) in next street which I think is stunning but looks completely out of step with anything else - might as well have landed from Mars.
Different planners presumably.
January 2024
Milford South Jn to Castleford (rare track now with regular service)
May 2024
Wandsworth Road to Battersea Park both ways in daylight. (rare track since 2012)
Scarborough North Bay (Peasholm to Scalby Mills) (heritage)
Scarborough Central Tramway (cliff lift) (heritage)
Scarborough Spa Cliff Lift (heritage)
June 2024
Kensal Rise to Willesden Jnc Low Level (rare track)
Tower to Blackpool North (tram) (new route)
Pleasant Street to Talbot Square (tram) (new route)
Kirkcaldy to Leven (new route)
July 2024
Kirkby to Headbolt Lane (remodelled track via new station)
Headbolt Lane to Rainford (remodelled track via new station)
Marsh Farm railway (attraction)
Mangapps to Old Heath (Mangapps Farm) (heritage)
August 2024
Gaer Jn to Park Jn (Newport to Pye Corner direct) (rare track now with regular service)
Lichfield Trent Valley to Wichnor Jn (XC diversion Brum to Burton) (rare track)
September 2024
Clitheroe to Hellifield (rare track, Saturdays only)
Foxhall Jn to Didcot West Curve Jn (Swindon to Oxford service, eastbound only) (rare track, Saturdays only)
October 2024
Glinton Jn to Marholm Jn via Werrington diveunder (rare track-ish)
Sleaford avoider both ways in daylight (dark southbound only in 2019) (rare track)
Gainsborough Lea Rd to Doncaster (northbound; southbound only in 2017, 2019)
Barnetby to Gainsborough Trent Jns (southbound; northbound only done in 2019) (rare track with once daily service)
November 2024
Reedham to Great Yarmouth eastbound (westbound only in 2016) (rare track)
GWR diversions from/to Euston:
Willesden West London Jn to Acton Wells Jns (rare track)
Acton Wells Jns to Acton West Jn (via goods line alongside Acton Main Line) (rare track)
December 2024
Beaulieu Park (upcoming) station new up loop (new track)
Trump's approach is that every deal has a winner and a loser. And, if you can ratfuck the other party, so much the better, it's "just good business." And, people who display good faith and honour, are just "suckers and losers."
Talking of the male bias amongst our PBers more sympathetic to Trump, his response to Trudeau this morning on Twitter has been "Girl, you have no say, you're not even Governor of Canada any more".
Those thinking that Trump (and now Musk) are all.talk with Canada, are forgetting that it's Musk himself who has an extensive personal history and connection with Canada, not Trump.
Occupying Canada had no mention in Trump's first term, whereas Greenland was.
Much more common in recent years is for Chancellors to hang on despite efforts to fire them (Hammond, Darling, possibly Barber).
He could I suppose move Reeves to the Foreign Office but sacking Lammy would not be a great look either.
But it’s the same with Newcastle. As soon as Isak breaks down, any moment, Newcastle will go back to huffing and puffing with no cutting edge. Isak probably won’t play the cup final against Liverpool, having got the team there - he didn’t go to a bigger club to start with because of his awful absence record every season.
Same with Liverpool too. Over reliant on Salah for cutting edge. Without Salah where will their cutting edge come from?
Battle Royal Sundays game now. Any predictions from you? You would still favour Arsenal Sunday wouldn’t you?
Putin he sees as a fellow white nationalist so wants neither a military nor economic war with him
There is a certain irony in this, of course...
That issue is without doubt coming down the line and perhaps his unpredictable bonkersness might be a deterrent to Xi. Or. The Chinese might think oh no he wouldn't.
BBC News - Former coal mine to become giant battery park
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yd18q248jo
The outspoken broadcaster's production company is to take ownership of his Uncensored YouTube channel as part of a deal that will see it enter a four-year revenue-sharing agreement with Rupert Murdoch's UK subsidiary
https://news.sky.com/story/piers-morgan-to-leave-murdoch8217s-news-uk-in-deal-over-youtube-venture-13285365
Like Leon, Piers has been following developments in the podcast space where it turns out star presenters can be biggest part of the brand, eg Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and that footballer.
Good business creates a "win win" and good longlasting relationships.