The Tories are running down an ideological cul-de-sac. The social post about being defenders of Western Civilidation is utterly bonkers. These are serious times, and Badenoch is simply not serious. Total irrelevance beckons.
The Lib Dems smell weakness, hopefully. There’s an opportunity to position themselves as the mainstream opposition to Labour, with Reform as the supposedly “populist” opposition.
I agree with your first paragraph, but you lose it on the second.
Here's an evergreen comment for you: whatever the question, the Liberal Democrats are never the answer.
Given the Lib Dems now hold almost half the seats in Surrey - what does that say about the modern Tory Party?
They're shit, but it doesn't mean the Lib Dems are going anywhere.
The LDs are the school snitches of the kids playground, the type that "tells Sir", changes their tune depending on what they think will ingratiate themselves with the teachers the most, and couldn't lead a dog.
No-one looks to them as an alternative.
I mean quite clearly they are looking to them in parts of the country that were once true blue Tory. The kind of places that should be ripe for an upbeat, optimistic Conservative message.
I have some sympathy with your view of the negatives about the Lib Dems - their willingness to go full NIMBY is frustrating. But again, what does it say about the Tories that they've been getting their clock cleaned by a party whose main message is, "You may not agree with us on everything but at least we're not that horrible rabble"?
You need to do much better for the LDs than to just answer every challenge with, 'What does this say about the Tories?'
You need to much better for the Tories than worry about the weakest of utterances of (for every fault of their own) a completely inconsequential LD party.
We're talking about the Liberal Democrats.
And this is the problem with the Liberal Democrats: they'd prefer that we do anything but.
Which is why you're never going to take over the world.
I don't think the LDs will gain much, Starmer and Badenoch have equally confirmed support for Zelensky and Ukraine (as to be fair did Truss as PM). Starmer is also very pro EDI unlike Trump and both Starmer and Badenoch as well as Davey oppose Trump's tariffs and Starmer has reiterated support for a 2 state solution between Israel and Palestine. The most pro Trump party is Reform whose voters would never consider the pro EU, pro immigration LDs anyway
Only the LibDems are going after Trump. I suspect this will be popular with the current LibDem voter base and those the party is targeting for next time.
I’ve noticed several of them deliberately tagging JD Vance and Musk in their tweets, to provoke a reaction.
Davey already had an online attack from Musk a few weeks ago. They must have seen the engagement numbers from that and thought “hmm, let’s get a bit more”.
The Lib Dems are political prostitutes with few punters.
Pretty weak attack line.
29 gains more from the Tories and Sir Ed is His Majesty´s leader Leader of the Loyal Opposition.
The next locals could demonstrate that this is more than possible.
I am more than sure that there will be increasingly vicious attacks on the Lib Dems, I am increasingly sure that they won´t work.
But you're a core LD supporter and activist.
For which perennial delusion is a central requirement.
To be fair, Tories really to figure out how they lost seats they held for over 100 years. My sincere hope is that they do not ally with Farage and remember what conservatism is all about. You’ll do well if you do.
Boris won and Farage on some polls is winning seats Labour held for 100 years, it is just the realignment post Brexit.
White working class areas have moved right and upper middle class areas have moved liberal left
Revolutionary right wing maga style nationalism does not equal British conservatism, it’s almost as far away from it at revolutionary socialism.
Depends when, the nationalist pro tariff Conservative Party of the late 19th and early 20th century is not far away
I'm a big fan of rabbit. I like it done the Catalan way - grilled and served with a mound of alioli, roasted peppers and chips. Add a bottle of filthy strong red wine from the Priorat and you're in paradise
That sounds amazing.
We haven't eaten rabbit since witnessing the effects of myxomatosis in the rabbit population in Northumberland in the 1950s
My dad was the same.
He had myxomatosis?
It was awful, and we would deliberately drive over the poor stricken rabbits to put them out of their misery
There were lots of them on the country roads and it was very unpleasant but necessary
I'm surprised I can't find anything contemporaneous on the disease in the UK.
We lived in Northumberland in the 1950s ( Berwick-upon-Tweed) and I often went with my father as he visited farms throughout the county and they were dying everywhere and it was grotesque
We used to wait by the fields as the farmers cut their crops and bludgeoned them and gave them to the public and they made a wonderful meal
Quotes getting messed up. But re bans, HYUFD isn;t protesting against mouflon meat or zebra meat not being available, sorry I meant, banned, in his local Tesco. Look here.
We have a significant pork production industry in the UK, zebra or mouflon meat is almost entirely imported, neither are native British animals like pigs
Er ... most farming pig breeds are in large part non-native non-British, albeit heavily hybridised ...
And if it's British to eat that on your logic, surely it's even more British not to?
There are large numbers of pig farms across Britain, very few zebra or mouflon farms.
In any case Five Guys is a burger chain which has always put bacon on many of its burgers, it never sold zebra or mouflon meat, so it has taken a decision to deliberately remove non halal meat like bacon from its menu
Changing the goalposts yet again, complete no doubt with squirrel meat.
You claimed that it was outrageous to ban pork because it is NATIVE BRITISH. Native is the word used for breeds, not for individuals, when it is used of farm animals [edit]. And when I point out the breeds aren't very British you suddenly decide it's not relevant.
You'll need to do better than this on the doorstep.
Is this not as simple as: Five Guys is a chain with an almost entirely consistent menu, and if you go to one that varies from that by not including certain items it's quite reasonable to be disappointed?
yes totally reasonable, but has HYUFD had that experience? and if even if you do have that experience, is it reasonable to start going on about people imposing sharia law
If restaurants in Muslim majority areas of the UK are only allowed to sell halal meat, in time some Muslim majority areas of the UK could try and impose Sharia law too, indeed there are now 85 Islamic councils and Sharia courts in the UK even if not recognised under national law
She's far less clever than she thinks and she's far more clever than we think.
If I was in her place I'd never have the strength of character to come back from her disasters. I hope she does.
It’s not that she’s stupid. It’s that she’s batshit.
There’s a decent case to be made that she ought to be sectioned.
As discussed with @kle4 - I know you're a tough Kiwi, but could you have come back from what she's been through? (Obviously self-inflicted, but still)
Absolutely not. And I genuinely believe that her response to events is manifesting as unhingedness.
By accounts, she was always odd, now she’s totally cracked.
By observation, she was always odd, and continues to be odd. Odd can be good though, and there has to be a small comfy corner in the world where odd gets to put it feet up.
It's a psychological firewall she's put around herself to protect her self-esteem.
The alternative - confronting that she might actually be wrong- is too painful to contemplate.
Maybe, and (in my view) that's probably true. I see little merit, and some cruelty in hounding her.
Is she being hounded? - I mean of course she'll be upset when she reads rude comments about her here on pb.com - but she seems to have chosen to make money appearing on stages with a bunch of American far-right asshats. She's not exactly become a dignified recluse.
The Tories are running down an ideological cul-de-sac. The social post about being defenders of Western Civilidation is utterly bonkers. These are serious times, and Badenoch is simply not serious. Total irrelevance beckons.
The Lib Dems smell weakness, hopefully. There’s an opportunity to position themselves as the mainstream opposition to Labour, with Reform as the supposedly “populist” opposition.
I agree with your first paragraph, but you lose it on the second.
Here's an evergreen comment for you: whatever the question, the Liberal Democrats are never the answer.
Given the Lib Dems now hold almost half the seats in Surrey - what does that say about the modern Tory Party?
They're shit, but it doesn't mean the Lib Dems are going anywhere.
The LDs are the school snitches of the kids playground, the type that "tells Sir", changes their tune depending on what they think will ingratiate themselves with the teachers the most, and couldn't lead a dog.
No-one looks to them as an alternative.
I mean quite clearly they are looking to them in parts of the country that were once true blue Tory. The kind of places that should be ripe for an upbeat, optimistic Conservative message.
I have some sympathy with your view of the negatives about the Lib Dems - their willingness to go full NIMBY is frustrating. But again, what does it say about the Tories that they've been getting their clock cleaned by a party whose main message is, "You may not agree with us on everything but at least we're not that horrible rabble"?
You need to do much better for the LDs than to just answer every challenge with, 'What does this say about the Tories?'
You need to much better for the Tories than worry about the weakest of utterances of (for every fault of their own) a completely inconsequential LD party.
We're talking about the Liberal Democrats.
And this is the problem with the Liberal Democrats: they'd prefer that we do anything but.
Which is why you're never going to take over the world.
I'm not a LD. Never have been. However, like you (!!!) I sort of see it as my retreat if the Tory party fold and we have the stupid trying to run things.
I think there's a lot to be said for TSE's analysis here. There is simply mo doubt that over the last few years British public opinion has swung strongly behind Ukraine. Whatever the reasons (plucky underdog, dislike of Russian aggression, or whatever) voters from all political parties and none have been raising money, sheltering refugees and generally supporting Ukraine. it's going to take a lot of reverse-ferretting to persuade churchgoers, charities, blokes in pubs etc that Zelensky is now the bad guy. Add in to this a general distaste (at best) for Trump, Trumpism, Musk-etry and general US belligerence, then it looks like Ed Davey & Co could be in exactly the same position as the vast majority of British voters.
I for one would have no hesitation in lending my protest vote to a party that is openly and transparently pro-Ukraine, anti-Trump and pro-Europe. I expect that many Conservatives and Labour voters would feel the same way, as neither Starmer nor Badenoch can say what the majority of their members would like them to say. And as for Farage, he's going to have to be very nimble on his feet to avoid being tarred by Trump's rapidly evolving but still bizarre foreign policy.
Agree. Countries don't have to be perfect for us in the UK to object to an invader bully creating refugees, widows and orphans in a country on our continent. Apart from anything else, the simple question: Who Next? applies.
Also, Farage's slippery comments, SFAICS, focussed on the narrow issues of: Is the Ukraine leader a dictator, and what about elections soon. The key Trumpian issue of 'Ukraine started it' was carefully evaded.
I love the fact that having subjugated over 20% of the planet, created colonies, and imposed governments on indigenous peoples around the world we now love an underdog.
British appreciation for the underdog is a deep cultural touchstone.
I think it’s one thing, for example, that divides British culture from American.
But it's weird. We were the bullies, the colonisers, the oppressors, and now all of a sudden we love the plucky underdog. Guilt, perhaps.
Pinpointing the moment things tipped more towards underdogs would be an interesting one. Despite occasional rhetoric about the values of the UK (or any other place) they are obviously not timeless and can shift dramatically - going from slaving to free slaves being one example - but it would be interesting if there was still an 'underdog' appreciation even when our actions were a long way from it.
In modern times it might be as simple as we think of ourselves as underdogs, the small nation which punched well above its weight in international matters for good and ill, so see ourselves in any underdog situation. Even though the UK has been pretty powerful for a long time, compared to many other places.
Yes. There was immense public sympathy for Spain and Portugal, in 1808-14.
Crucially, Irish Catholics were for once entirely on the same side as English Protestants. Irish Catholics made up 25% of the army.
Anyone who has read Sharpe knows that all the best soliders in the army were Irish, Welsh, or Scottish.
Christ, notwithstanding Sharpe himself being English I think even the French opponents get fewer villainous mooments than post English officers.
Don’t forget the Essex Men and cockneys (which Sharpe was).
The big recruiting grounds were Ireland, and the Highlands (where the army was almost the only career option, both for younger sons of farmers and minor gentry); and places like Essex (which incorporated East London), where poverty was rife, Staffordshire, South Lancs., South Yorks., which were hit by periodic mass unemployment, during industrialisation.
The Navy was drawing heavily on the Southern coastal areas.
Very much so, but it was quite cosmopolitan (about 10% of sailors at Trafalgar were from overseas). There were also lots of Irish sailors. The Royal Navy was actually a pretty good option for the lower classes.
I'm reading NAM Roger's extensive three volume history at the moment. Not easy reads, but outstanding books.
Just finished vol 1 and dipp;ing into 3 at the moment - recently bought the latter. But I'm trying not to get diverted from his Wooden Wall atm.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
The Tories are running down an ideological cul-de-sac. The social post about being defenders of Western Civilidation is utterly bonkers. These are serious times, and Badenoch is simply not serious. Total irrelevance beckons.
The Lib Dems smell weakness, hopefully. There’s an opportunity to position themselves as the mainstream opposition to Labour, with Reform as the supposedly “populist” opposition.
I agree with your first paragraph, but you lose it on the second.
Here's an evergreen comment for you: whatever the question, the Liberal Democrats are never the answer.
Given the Lib Dems now hold almost half the seats in Surrey - what does that say about the modern Tory Party?
They're shit, but it doesn't mean the Lib Dems are going anywhere.
The LDs are the school snitches of the kids playground, the type that "tells Sir", changes their tune depending on what they think will ingratiate themselves with the teachers the most, and couldn't lead a dog.
No-one looks to them as an alternative.
I mean quite clearly they are looking to them in parts of the country that were once true blue Tory. The kind of places that should be ripe for an upbeat, optimistic Conservative message.
I have some sympathy with your view of the negatives about the Lib Dems - their willingness to go full NIMBY is frustrating. But again, what does it say about the Tories that they've been getting their clock cleaned by a party whose main message is, "You may not agree with us on everything but at least we're not that horrible rabble"?
You need to do much better for the LDs than to just answer every challenge with, 'What does this say about the Tories?'
You need to much better for the Tories than worry about the weakest of utterances of (for every fault of their own) a completely inconsequential LD party.
We're talking about the Liberal Democrats.
And this is the problem with the Liberal Democrats: they'd prefer that we do anything but.
Which is why you're never going to take over the world.
I'm not a LD. Never have been. However, like you (!!!) I sort of see it as my retreat if the Tory party fold and we have the stupid trying to run things.
Fair enough, and I'd maintain my point for those who are.
They need to have a narrative about what they stand for that commands broad electoral support rather than because they think they're the most sensible, enlightened and grown-up people in the room.
She's far less clever than she thinks and she's far more clever than we think.
If I was in her place I'd never have the strength of character to come back from her disasters. I hope she does.
It’s not that she’s stupid. It’s that she’s batshit.
There’s a decent case to be made that she ought to be sectioned.
As discussed with @kle4 - I know you're a tough Kiwi, but could you have come back from what she's been through? (Obviously self-inflicted, but still)
Absolutely not. And I genuinely believe that her response to events is manifesting as unhingedness.
By accounts, she was always odd, now she’s totally cracked.
By observation, she was always odd, and continues to be odd. Odd can be good though, and there has to be a small comfy corner in the world where odd gets to put it feet up.
It's a psychological firewall she's put around herself to protect her self-esteem.
The alternative - confronting that she might actually be wrong- is too painful to contemplate.
Maybe, and (in my view) that's probably true. I see little merit, and some cruelty in hounding her.
Is she being hounded? - I mean of course she'll be upset when she reads rude comments about her here on pb.com - but she seems to have chosen to make money appearing on stages with a bunch of American far-right asshats. She's not exactly become a dignified recluse.
She did have something of a sense of humour failure when Led By Donkeys pulled one of their stunts on her:
FPT: My local pub doesn't sell bacon. My local butcher doesn't sell beer. It's an absolute disgrace. Woke madness.
Does your local pub and local butcher only sell halal meat?
As a small state free marketeer (I presume) surely you should be delighted that firms respond to market forces in their choice of products and services to provide.
They can include halal meat in areas with significant Muslims they shouldn't stop selling non halal meat, especially if they are a national chain and not a Muslim shop. I am not a pure free marketeer either, just more so than socialist
I sometimes go to a butcher in Golders Green. Guess what they sell and don’t sell.
It's completely legal to sell horsemeat in England, but an awful lot of butchers just don't for some reason. I wouldn't describe that as a ban.
For me eating food is all about what my brain thinks about it.. so any slimy foods like oysters and other shellfish are out as is dog and the like just unthinkable to me
Horse is equally unthinkable as its a domestic animal much loved by many.
As far as the French are concerned, the only thing they don't eat is human flesh.. afaik....
I think there's a lot to be said for TSE's analysis here. There is simply mo doubt that over the last few years British public opinion has swung strongly behind Ukraine. Whatever the reasons (plucky underdog, dislike of Russian aggression, or whatever) voters from all political parties and none have been raising money, sheltering refugees and generally supporting Ukraine. it's going to take a lot of reverse-ferretting to persuade churchgoers, charities, blokes in pubs etc that Zelensky is now the bad guy. Add in to this a general distaste (at best) for Trump, Trumpism, Musk-etry and general US belligerence, then it looks like Ed Davey & Co could be in exactly the same position as the vast majority of British voters.
I for one would have no hesitation in lending my protest vote to a party that is openly and transparently pro-Ukraine, anti-Trump and pro-Europe. I expect that many Conservatives and Labour voters would feel the same way, as neither Starmer nor Badenoch can say what the majority of their members would like them to say. And as for Farage, he's going to have to be very nimble on his feet to avoid being tarred by Trump's rapidly evolving but still bizarre foreign policy.
Agree. Countries don't have to be perfect for us in the UK to object to an invader bully creating refugees, widows and orphans in a country on our continent. Apart from anything else, the simple question: Who Next? applies.
Also, Farage's slippery comments, SFAICS, focussed on the narrow issues of: Is the Ukraine leader a dictator, and what about elections soon. The key Trumpian issue of 'Ukraine started it' was carefully evaded.
I love the fact that having subjugated over 20% of the planet, created colonies, and imposed governments on indigenous peoples around the world we now love an underdog.
British appreciation for the underdog is a deep cultural touchstone.
I think it’s one thing, for example, that divides British culture from American.
But it's weird. We were the bullies, the colonisers, the oppressors, and now all of a sudden we love the plucky underdog. Guilt, perhaps.
Pinpointing the moment things tipped more towards underdogs would be an interesting one. Despite occasional rhetoric about the values of the UK (or any other place) they are obviously not timeless and can shift dramatically - going from slaving to free slaves being one example - but it would be interesting if there was still an 'underdog' appreciation even when our actions were a long way from it.
In modern times it might be as simple as we think of ourselves as underdogs, the small nation which punched well above its weight in international matters for good and ill, so see ourselves in any underdog situation. Even though the UK has been pretty powerful for a long time, compared to many other places.
Yes. There was immense public sympathy for Spain and Portugal, in 1808-14.
Crucially, Irish Catholics were for once entirely on the same side as English Protestants. Irish Catholics made up 25% of the army.
Anyone who has read Sharpe knows that all the best soliders in the army were Irish, Welsh, or Scottish.
Christ, notwithstanding Sharpe himself being English I think even the French opponents get fewer villainous mooments than post English officers.
Don’t forget the Essex Men and cockneys (which Sharpe was).
The big recruiting grounds were Ireland, and the Highlands (where the army was almost the only career option, both for younger sons of farmers and minor gentry); and places like Essex (which incorporated East London), where poverty was rife, Staffordshire, South Lancs., South Yorks., which were hit by periodic mass unemployment, during industrialisation.
The Navy was drawing heavily on the Southern coastal areas.
Very much so, but it was quite cosmopolitan (about 10% of sailors at Trafalgar were from overseas). There were also lots of Irish sailors. The Royal Navy was actually a pretty good option for the lower classes.
I'm reading NAM Roger's extensive three volume history at the moment. Not easy reads, but outstanding books.
They are superb. I read the same as you did about where the Navy did most of its recruiting.
I was fairly shocked at how shit the Admiralty and the Navy were institutionally for most of the 19thC, with a terrible approach to educating, training and selecting officers, and almost no central organisation worth its salt because they took almost all their direction from central government.
I'm a big fan of rabbit. I like it done the Catalan way - grilled and served with a mound of alioli, roasted peppers and chips. Add a bottle of filthy strong red wine from the Priorat and you're in paradise
That sounds amazing.
We haven't eaten rabbit since witnessing the effects of myxomatosis in the rabbit population in Northumberland in the 1950s
My dad was the same.
He had myxomatosis?
It was awful, and we would deliberately drive over the poor stricken rabbits to put them out of their misery
There were lots of them on the country roads and it was very unpleasant but necessary
I'm surprised I can't find anything contemporaneous on the disease in the UK.
We lived in Northumberland in the 1950s ( Berwick-upon-Tweed) and I often went with my father as he visited farms throughout the county and they were dying everywhere and it was grotesque
We used to wait by the fields as the farmers cut their crops and bludgeoned them and gave them to the public and they made a wonderful meal
But as soon as myxomatosis arrived that ended
There's a bit of footage of rabbit drives in the vid - one quoted kills 5000 in an afternoon.
Catch in a chicken wire enclosure, then go in with sticks.
I don't think the LDs will gain much, Starmer and Badenoch have equally confirmed support for Zelensky and Ukraine (as to be fair did Truss as PM). Starmer is also very pro EDI unlike Trump and both Starmer and Badenoch as well as Davey oppose Trump's tariffs and Starmer has reiterated support for a 2 state solution between Israel and Palestine. The most pro Trump party is Reform whose voters would never consider the pro EU, pro immigration LDs anyway
Only the LibDems are going after Trump. I suspect this will be popular with the current LibDem voter base and those the party is targeting for next time.
I’ve noticed several of them deliberately tagging JD Vance and Musk in their tweets, to provoke a reaction.
Davey already had an online attack from Musk a few weeks ago. They must have seen the engagement numbers from that and thought “hmm, let’s get a bit more”.
The Lib Dems are political prostitutes with few punters.
Pretty weak attack line.
29 gains more from the Tories and Sir Ed is His Majesty´s leader Leader of the Loyal Opposition.
The next locals could demonstrate that this is more than possible.
I am more than sure that there will be increasingly vicious attacks on the Lib Dems, I am increasingly sure that they won´t work.
But you're a core LD supporter and activist.
For which perennial delusion is a central requirement.
To be fair, Tories really to figure out how they lost seats they held for over 100 years. My sincere hope is that they do not ally with Farage and remember what conservatism is all about. You’ll do well if you do.
Boris won and Farage on some polls is winning seats Labour held for 100 years, it is just the realignment post Brexit.
White working class areas have moved right and upper middle class areas have moved liberal left
Revolutionary right wing maga style nationalism does not equal British conservatism, it’s almost as far away from it at revolutionary socialism.
The journey to get there is pretty clear, money, social media backed by some traditional papers and tv news. Its going to happen unless we take them on, and that starts with recognising what the broligarchs want, not reflecting on how we are and used to be.
Faytuks News @Faytuks · 1h French newspaper Le Point says that Trump is set to meet Putin in Moscow on May 9th to commemorate the end of WW2
About time for another one I suppose.
That date is extremely significant and another kick in the teeth for all of Europe.
I reckon we’ve got just about enough time to stick turbines in the hundreds of thousands of burial plots of allied troops, Churchill, Roosevelt, and other worthies to capture the electrical surge from the biggest spinning in graves in the history of this planet.
"Donald Trump says France's Emmanuel Macron and UK PM Keir Starmer "haven't done anything" to end the war in Ukraine, ahead of visits from both leaders to the White House next week"
"Trump speaks about Ukraine's President Zelensky and says: "I've been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards and you get sick of it...I've had it," he says."
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
Just imagine if the stain on humanity had been President when the war started .
I don’t have the words to describe just how much I loathe Trump and Vance .
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
She's far less clever than she thinks and she's far more clever than we think.
If I was in her place I'd never have the strength of character to come back from her disasters. I hope she does.
It’s not that she’s stupid. It’s that she’s batshit.
There’s a decent case to be made that she ought to be sectioned.
As discussed with @kle4 - I know you're a tough Kiwi, but could you have come back from what she's been through? (Obviously self-inflicted, but still)
Absolutely not. And I genuinely believe that her response to events is manifesting as unhingedness.
By accounts, she was always odd, now she’s totally cracked.
By observation, she was always odd, and continues to be odd. Odd can be good though, and there has to be a small comfy corner in the world where odd gets to put it feet up.
It's a psychological firewall she's put around herself to protect her self-esteem.
The alternative - confronting that she might actually be wrong- is too painful to contemplate.
Maybe, and (in my view) that's probably true. I see little merit, and some cruelty in hounding her.
Is she being hounded? - I mean of course she'll be upset when she reads rude comments about her here on pb.com - but she seems to have chosen to make money appearing on stages with a bunch of American far-right asshats. She's not exactly become a dignified recluse.
She did have something of a sense of humour failure when Led By Donkeys pulled one of their stunts on her:
(Ironically, if disastrously, she turned out to be right in her analysis of Trump’s chances.)
I wouldn't feel too sorry for her. She's making good money, and has started a whole conversation on economic growth that now possesses all sides of the political spectrum.
Feel sorry for Led by Donkeys, who are incapable of targeting their flaccid centrist 'activism' at Sir Useless, as sadly he is the fruition of their cherished ambitions. Consequently they are reduced to trying to 'satirise' people who haven't been in office for three years. See also Have I Got News For You. See also most of PB.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
The problem is that "we" aren't the ones dying, and the people who are currently don't have a choice.
We are having a day such as you have once in a lifetime. First the birth of Elliot. And now my son has an unconditional offer to do a BPhil at Oxford for the next two years. He is ecstatic. Only 25 places a year and applications from all over the world.
Belgium delays F-16 deliveries—Ukraine must wait for at least another year
Despite the critical role of air support for Ukraine, Belgian defense officials cite delays in US F-35 deliveries as the main reason for postponing the transfer of F-16s https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1893012856548762014
I think there's a lot to be said for TSE's analysis here. There is simply mo doubt that over the last few years British public opinion has swung strongly behind Ukraine. Whatever the reasons (plucky underdog, dislike of Russian aggression, or whatever) voters from all political parties and none have been raising money, sheltering refugees and generally supporting Ukraine. it's going to take a lot of reverse-ferretting to persuade churchgoers, charities, blokes in pubs etc that Zelensky is now the bad guy. Add in to this a general distaste (at best) for Trump, Trumpism, Musk-etry and general US belligerence, then it looks like Ed Davey & Co could be in exactly the same position as the vast majority of British voters.
I for one would have no hesitation in lending my protest vote to a party that is openly and transparently pro-Ukraine, anti-Trump and pro-Europe. I expect that many Conservatives and Labour voters would feel the same way, as neither Starmer nor Badenoch can say what the majority of their members would like them to say. And as for Farage, he's going to have to be very nimble on his feet to avoid being tarred by Trump's rapidly evolving but still bizarre foreign policy.
Agree. Countries don't have to be perfect for us in the UK to object to an invader bully creating refugees, widows and orphans in a country on our continent. Apart from anything else, the simple question: Who Next? applies.
Also, Farage's slippery comments, SFAICS, focussed on the narrow issues of: Is the Ukraine leader a dictator, and what about elections soon. The key Trumpian issue of 'Ukraine started it' was carefully evaded.
I love the fact that having subjugated over 20% of the planet, created colonies, and imposed governments on indigenous peoples around the world we now love an underdog.
British appreciation for the underdog is a deep cultural touchstone.
I think it’s one thing, for example, that divides British culture from American.
But it's weird. We were the bullies, the colonisers, the oppressors, and now all of a sudden we love the plucky underdog. Guilt, perhaps.
Pinpointing the moment things tipped more towards underdogs would be an interesting one. Despite occasional rhetoric about the values of the UK (or any other place) they are obviously not timeless and can shift dramatically - going from slaving to free slaves being one example - but it would be interesting if there was still an 'underdog' appreciation even when our actions were a long way from it.
In modern times it might be as simple as we think of ourselves as underdogs, the small nation which punched well above its weight in international matters for good and ill, so see ourselves in any underdog situation. Even though the UK has been pretty powerful for a long time, compared to many other places.
Yes. There was immense public sympathy for Spain and Portugal, in 1808-14.
Crucially, Irish Catholics were for once entirely on the same side as English Protestants. Irish Catholics made up 25% of the army.
Anyone who has read Sharpe knows that all the best soliders in the army were Irish, Welsh, or Scottish.
Christ, notwithstanding Sharpe himself being English I think even the French opponents get fewer villainous mooments than post English officers.
Don’t forget the Essex Men and cockneys (which Sharpe was).
The big recruiting grounds were Ireland, and the Highlands (where the army was almost the only career option, both for younger sons of farmers and minor gentry); and places like Essex (which incorporated East London), where poverty was rife, Staffordshire, South Lancs., South Yorks., which were hit by periodic mass unemployment, during industrialisation.
The Navy was drawing heavily on the Southern coastal areas.
Very much so, but it was quite cosmopolitan (about 10% of sailors at Trafalgar were from overseas). There were also lots of Irish sailors. The Royal Navy was actually a pretty good option for the lower classes.
I'm reading NAM Roger's extensive three volume history at the moment. Not easy reads, but outstanding books.
They are superb. I read the same as you did about where the Navy did most of its recruiting.
I was fairly shocked at how shit the Admiralty and the Navy were institutionally for most of the 19thC, with a terrible approach to educating, training and selecting officers, and almost no central organisation worth its salt because they took almost all their direction from central government.
But, then again, I sort of wasn't.
Well yes. Realism is all very well for the art folk, but it isn't so great when it arrives on your doorstep.
Belgium delays F-16 deliveries—Ukraine must wait for at least another year
Despite the critical role of air support for Ukraine, Belgian defense officials cite delays in US F-35 deliveries as the main reason for postponing the transfer of F-16s https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1893012856548762014
Another failure to appreciate where the front line is and where the battle is being fought.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
With all due respect to him, I would think the Vice President of the USA has access to better sources.
With Gabbard running intel? I doubt it.
Even more pertinently Trump is rumoured to be about to dimiss a whole load of senior military officers, who are presumably in many cases the very people who brief him and Vance on the state of play in Ukraine. Highly competent, in-the-know, but too loyal to their Oaths rather than to Trump.
"Donald Trump says France's Emmanuel Macron and UK PM Keir Starmer "haven't done anything" to end the war in Ukraine, ahead of visits from both leaders to the White House next week"
"Trump speaks about Ukraine's President Zelensky and says: "I've been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards and you get sick of it...I've had it," he says."
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
The problem is that "we" aren't the ones dying, and the people who are currently don't have a choice.
But, Trump is making the choice for them. He wishes them to be ruled by that nice Mr. Putin.
Trump is a traitor to his own country, and a menace to others.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Actually, the point is that the US no longer wishes to support Ukraine, and is happy to let it be consumed to a lesser or greater extent.
The U.S. sees no geopolitical advantage, and perhaps many geopolitical disadvantages, to supporting Ukraine now.
That allowing Russia to prevail is a win for an authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-Western power is not thought relevant or given any weight.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Actually, the point is that the US no longer wishes to support Ukraine, and is happy to let it be consumed to a lesser or greater extent.
The U.S. sees no geopolitical advantage, and perhaps many geopolitical disadvantages, to supporting Ukraine now.
That allowing Russia to prevail is a win for an authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-Western power is not thought relevant or given any weight.
Maybe it's time for Poland to offer Ukraine the equivalent of the Franco-British Union that we proposed to France.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Ukraine simply has to keep fighting till their enemies get sick of taking casualties. It does not have capture Moscow. That’s a strategy that plenty of smaller nations have pursued successfully (North Vietnam, for example).
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Actually, the point is that the US no longer wishes to support Ukraine, and is happy to let it be consumed to a lesser or greater extent.
The U.S. sees no geopolitical advantage, and perhaps many geopolitical disadvantages, to supporting Ukraine now.
That allowing Russia to prevail is a win for an authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-Western power is not thought relevant or given any weight.
Trump's going a bit further though. He's saying Russia wins and the US gets to be on the winning side and divide the spoils.
"Donald Trump says France's Emmanuel Macron and UK PM Keir Starmer "haven't done anything" to end the war in Ukraine, ahead of visits from both leaders to the White House next week"
"Trump speaks about Ukraine's President Zelensky and says: "I've been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards and you get sick of it...I've had it," he says."
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Ukraine simply has to keep fighting till their enemies get sick of taking casualties. It does not have capture Moscow. That’s a strategy that plenty of smaller nations have pursued successfully (North Vietnam, for example).
That's the insurgency strategy that the Biden administration was initially planning for when they thought Russia would roll over Ukraine in three days.
Vance hates Europe for the same reason that many Brexiters claim to hate the EU: that it is effete, “sclerotic”, hypocritical, and whines from behind the hem of the U.S. petticoat.
He also thinks Europe at large has no plan for demographic decline apart from importing culturally hostile immigrants.
It’s effectively the Leon critique, and if only Britain were somehow excluded, many of our Brexiters would vigorously agree.
"Donald Trump says France's Emmanuel Macron and UK PM Keir Starmer "haven't done anything" to end the war in Ukraine, ahead of visits from both leaders to the White House next week"
"Trump speaks about Ukraine's President Zelensky and says: "I've been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards and you get sick of it...I've had it," he says."
Vance hates Europe for the same reason that many Brexiters claim to hate the EU: that it is effete, “sclerotic”, hypocritical, and whines from behind the hem of the U.S. petticoat.
He also thinks Europe at large has no plan for demographic decline apart from importing culturally hostile immigrants.
It’s effectively the Leon critique, and if only Britain were somehow excluded, many of our Brexiters would vigorously agree.
That's not hating Europe though. Only Europe's political elites.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Actually, the point is that the US no longer wishes to support Ukraine, and is happy to let it be consumed to a lesser or greater extent.
The U.S. sees no geopolitical advantage, and perhaps many geopolitical disadvantages, to supporting Ukraine now.
That allowing Russia to prevail is a win for an authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-Western power is not thought relevant or given any weight.
Maybe it's time for Poland to offer Ukraine the equivalent of the Franco-British Union that we proposed to France.
I think it’s time that a Poland announces that the UK and France have agreed to share nuclear weapons tech and equipment with them and for the UK and France to neither confirm nor deny.
Vance hates Europe for the same reason that many Brexiters claim to hate the EU: that it is effete, “sclerotic”, hypocritical, and whines from behind the hem of the U.S. petticoat.
He also thinks Europe at large has no plan for demographic decline apart from importing culturally hostile immigrants.
It’s effectively the Leon critique, and if only Britain were somehow excluded, many of our Brexiters would vigorously agree.
That's not hating Europe though. Only Europe's political elites.
Vance and Trump also like the white nationalist led parts of Europe like Hungary and Russia and the anti woke Italian PM Meloni
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Actually, the point is that the US no longer wishes to support Ukraine, and is happy to let it be consumed to a lesser or greater extent.
The U.S. sees no geopolitical advantage, and perhaps many geopolitical disadvantages, to supporting Ukraine now.
That allowing Russia to prevail is a win for an authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-Western power is not thought relevant or given any weight.
Maybe it's time for Poland to offer Ukraine the equivalent of the Franco-British Union that we proposed to France.
I think it’s time that a Poland announces that the UK and France have agreed to share nuclear weapons tech and equipment with them and for the UK and France to neither confirm nor deny.
Might be a bluff, might not be. Works for Israel.
Merz suggested this morning that Germany at least should be protected under an Anglo-French nuclear umbrella.
Talking of trains my wife and I went from Colwyn Bay to Euston for lunch two weeks ago, and in the next three weeks we are having lunch in Holyhead, Cardiff and Birmingham Airport and all back home by 6.30pm
We love trains but these jaunts seem to amuse our family and friends - maybe we are a bit eccentric in our old age !!
Vance hates Europe for the same reason that many Brexiters claim to hate the EU: that it is effete, “sclerotic”, hypocritical, and whines from behind the hem of the U.S. petticoat.
He also thinks Europe at large has no plan for demographic decline apart from importing culturally hostile immigrants.
It’s effectively the Leon critique, and if only Britain were somehow excluded, many of our Brexiters would vigorously agree.
My outlook is that Vance and his clique should look to their own sins first.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
The problem is that "we" aren't the ones dying, and the people who are currently don't have a choice.
But, Trump is making the choice for them. He wishes them to be ruled by that nice Mr. Putin.
Trump is a traitor to his own country, and a menace to others.
Someone was always making that choice for them. Ukraine is a smaller country next to a big, aggressive one with an ingrained fear of military encirclement by the West.
Those in Ukraine who bitterly opposed being a Russian fiefdom decided to be sponsored by the USA (and to a lesser extent the EU), who wanted to pull them out of Russia's sphere of influence. That was very much their right, but it was always going to be a change of dominant overlord, not freedom from being dominated. Ukranians aren't stupid and they would have very much known this.
Belgium delays F-16 deliveries—Ukraine must wait for at least another year
Despite the critical role of air support for Ukraine, Belgian defense officials cite delays in US F-35 deliveries as the main reason for postponing the transfer of F-16s https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1893012856548762014
Another failure to appreciate where the front line is and where the battle is being fought.
The Belgian batch are 2028, so quite late in the pipeline, which should reduce impact.
I'm slightly more worried about Musk getting his teeth into the F35 programme, which he has been talking about for some time.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
Actually, the point is that the US no longer wishes to support Ukraine, and is happy to let it be consumed to a lesser or greater extent.
The U.S. sees no geopolitical advantage, and perhaps many geopolitical disadvantages, to supporting Ukraine now.
That allowing Russia to prevail is a win for an authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-Western power is not thought relevant or given any weight.
Maybe it's time for Poland to offer Ukraine the equivalent of the Franco-British Union that we proposed to France.
I think it’s time that a Poland announces that the UK and France have agreed to share nuclear weapons tech and equipment with them and for the UK and France to neither confirm nor deny.
Might be a bluff, might not be. Works for Israel.
Merz suggested this morning that Germany at least should be protected under an Anglo-French nuclear umbrella.
Cool, so they are in for a third of the cost. Frees up our defence budget for 5000 helmets and other useful things.
"Donald Trump says France's Emmanuel Macron and UK PM Keir Starmer "haven't done anything" to end the war in Ukraine, ahead of visits from both leaders to the White House next week"
"Trump speaks about Ukraine's President Zelensky and says: "I've been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards and you get sick of it...I've had it," he says."
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I know I bang on about Peter Zeihan, but he did predict American isolationism over a decade ago in his books, and has been adumbrating on it in his videos for years. I don't think Chinese tech supremacy is a necessary assumption, on Occam's Razor grounds if nothing else.
We are having a day such as you have once in a lifetime. First the birth of Elliot. And now my son has an unconditional offer to do a BPhil at Oxford for the next two years. He is ecstatic. Only 25 places a year and applications from all over the world.
Should I be rushing to buy a lottery ticket?
Ah, I see, Elliot is your grandson, not your son. I was hugely impressed at first glance by the one-day old's unconditional offer - most precocious. Congratulations to both.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I know I bang on about Peter Zeihan, but he did predict American isolationism over a decade ago in his books, and has been adumbrating on it in his videos for years. I don't think Chinese tech supremacy is a necessary assumption, on Occam's Razor grounds if nothing else.
Plus most of the big tech firms globally are American
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I know I bang on about Peter Zeihan, but he did predict American isolationism over a decade ago in his books, and has been adumbrating on it in his videos for years. I don't think Chinese tech supremacy is a necessary assumption, on Occam's Razor grounds if nothing else.
Zeihan keeps talking about how the UK has no choice but to accept American agri-slop.
Which is bollocks, and kind of undermines his whole oeuvre.
We are having a day such as you have once in a lifetime. First the birth of Elliot. And now my son has an unconditional offer to do a BPhil at Oxford for the next two years. He is ecstatic. Only 25 places a year and applications from all over the world.
Should I be rushing to buy a lottery ticket?
Ah, I see, Elliot is your grandson, not your son. I was hugely impressed at first glance by the one-day old's unconditional offer - most precocious. Congratulations to both.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I've been playing about with the idea that the US expects to fight China this summer over Taiwan. TBH, it's probably just sanewashing.
She's far less clever than she thinks and she's far more clever than we think.
If I was in her place I'd never have the strength of character to come back from her disasters. I hope she does.
It’s not that she’s stupid. It’s that she’s batshit.
There’s a decent case to be made that she ought to be sectioned.
As discussed with @kle4 - I know you're a tough Kiwi, but could you have come back from what she's been through? (Obviously self-inflicted, but still)
Absolutely not. And I genuinely believe that her response to events is manifesting as unhingedness.
By accounts, she was always odd, now she’s totally cracked.
By observation, she was always odd, and continues to be odd. Odd can be good though, and there has to be a small comfy corner in the world where odd gets to put it feet up.
It's a psychological firewall she's put around herself to protect her self-esteem.
The alternative - confronting that she might actually be wrong- is too painful to contemplate.
De Nile is not just a river in Africa.
Truss is so far into denial that she is living on a houseboat on Lake Victoria.
I do think it’s fascinating trying to understand the varying ideologies of Trump, Musk, and Vance. They are not uniformly coherent, although it is true they are all nasty fuckers.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
Given that Trumpism is anti-intellectual, that would seem to be exacerbating that loss of supremacy.
Sounds great. But wouldn't it be greater still if that plan for upgrading Liverpool to Hull (Northern Powerhouse, levelling up etc) were in place first, serving as it does one of the most densely populated parts of western Europe, including vast numbers of long suffering commuters.
I would be even more interested in a Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle or Leeds to anywhere the other side of the tunnel. Why does everyone have to go via London? If I’m flying, I avoid London. If I travel be train, why can’t I do the same.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
I wonder, at what point, Vance was bought.
It’s not about being bought.
In a transactionalist view of the world - "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must", is a a rational, good thing.
Since Ukraine has “no cards”, it is moral duty of the US government (in that view) to screw them as much as they can.
By resisting, Ukraine are being assholes. Not recognising their place in the world.
The Russians are in the “strong” group (again according to this world view) - a nuclear power. So they have a moral duty to their own people to screw Ukraine for everything they can.
I would be even more interested in a Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle or Leeds to anywhere the other side of the tunnel. Why does everyone have to go via London? If I’m flying, I avoid London. If I travel be train, why can’t I do the same.
Economics and geography. London is in the way and there are lots of people there and even more who want to go there.
We are having a day such as you have once in a lifetime. First the birth of Elliot. And now my son has an unconditional offer to do a BPhil at Oxford for the next two years. He is ecstatic. Only 25 places a year and applications from all over the world.
Should I be rushing to buy a lottery ticket?
You deserved some good fortune. I am thrilled for you.
We are having a day such as you have once in a lifetime. First the birth of Elliot. And now my son has an unconditional offer to do a BPhil at Oxford for the next two years. He is ecstatic. Only 25 places a year and applications from all over the world.
Should I be rushing to buy a lottery ticket?
You deserved some good fortune. I am thrilled for you.
As someone who rejoiced when democracy prevailed and Trump was elected I am interested to understand what, when we are able to understand this from some (temporal) distance, the implications of these seeming random, chaotic, and impulsive policy directives and announcements.
Vance yday reiterated the America First doctrine and that is surely why Trump was elected.
If we were to gather into a room all of the Hard Remainer One Nation Cameroony Conservatives in the whole of England who are also Donald Trump supporters I wonder who would be sitting there on his lonesome with nobody to talk to?
Yep. That's how special you are.
Thats clearly not true as I think I am that as well. Anyway better to have your own convictions that go with a herd just for comfort
Really? Seriously? Because Topping is only trolling on the Trump support. So if you're serious about it, and you're genuinely also a One Nation Socially Liberal Strong Remainer Tory, then it's YOU sitting there all on your own in that room instead. Terrible lonely fate!
Who are these idiots? What do they derive from trolling-for-Trump?
I can’t see what is wrong with what Topping is saying in the sense Trump was elected on an America first basis and is working on that.
Polling is starting to suggest that, actually, Americans don’t agree with the specific cruelties and corruptions of Trump in power.
I don’t believe Americans support cosying up to Putin, nor the up-ending of 80 years of geopolitical strategy.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
I wonder, at what point, Vance was bought.
It’s not about being bought.
In a transactionalist view of the world - "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must", is a a rational, good thing.
Since Ukraine has “no cards”, it is moral duty of the US government (in that view) to screw them as much as they can.
By resisting, Ukraine are being assholes. Not recognising their place in the world.
The Russians are in the “strong” group (again according to this world view) - a nuclear power. So they have a moral duty to their own people to screw Ukraine for everything they can.
Logical extension of Chicago school economics, Randian bollocks and libertarianism. Greed is good and might is right.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
It's a horrible conclusion but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ukraine may not be able to win without western troops fighting on its behalf which is something that almost certainly was never going to happen.
It might not be able to win but it was also about trying to hold as much of the country as possible . Or should we have just let Putin take over the whole country .
The problem is that "we" aren't the ones dying, and the people who are currently don't have a choice.
The ones who are principally dying are Russians. Surely you should be just as concerned about their losses.
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
I wonder, at what point, Vance was bought.
It’s not about being bought.
In a transactionalist view of the world - "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must", is a a rational, good thing.
Since Ukraine has “no cards”, it is moral duty of the US government (in that view) to screw them as much as they can.
By resisting, Ukraine are being assholes. Not recognising their place in the world.
The Russians are in the “strong” group (again according to this world view) - a nuclear power. So they have a moral duty to their own people to screw Ukraine for everything they can.
It’s not really transactional though, for that would imply that one follows through, on one’s own commitments.
And, it’s naively short-sighted, for it assumes that other nations won’t react accordingly. That one will never need allies, goodwill, favours that one can call in, that one does not need respect from other powers.
It actually overestimates the USA’s strength, and certainly Russia’s.
Let’s say we get to the point where the UK, France, Scandinavia, maybe Germany, have ramped up defence spending, what happens when the US needs help, and its former allies say “Go fuck yourself.”
Vance now arguing on X with the defence editor of the Economist about who knows more about Russian military strength in Ukr.
Vance makes an interesting argument.
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
Noah Smith, who writes a popular economics blog, speculates that Trump etc realise that the U.S. have actually LOST the battle for technical supremacy with China (aka Cold War 2) and are therefore guided by the idea of simply dividing the world into spheres of influence: Chinese, Russian, and of course an American one - within which the U.S. can retreat into splendid isolation.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
I know I bang on about Peter Zeihan, but he did predict American isolationism over a decade ago in his books, and has been adumbrating on it in his videos for years. I don't think Chinese tech supremacy is a necessary assumption, on Occam's Razor grounds if nothing else.
Zeihan keeps talking about how the UK has no choice but to accept American agri-slop.
Which is bollocks, and kind of undermines his whole oeuvre.
When the Eye of SaurElon lights on Keir Starmer and sends his Twitter orcs, what do you think he will do?
Comments
And this is the problem with the Liberal Democrats: they'd prefer that we do anything but.
Which is why you're never going to take over the world.
We used to wait by the fields as the farmers cut their crops and bludgeoned them and gave them to the public and they made a wonderful meal
But as soon as myxomatosis arrived that ended
The contention I think is Ukraine cannot win, and the only thing getting in the way of a conclusion to the war therefore is Ukraine’s (or even just Zelensky’s) selfish desire to keep defending itself.
A foolish defence which was previously underpinned by “globalists” like Biden.
It all follows that Zelensky is a pain and cannot be let to perpetuate the war; therefore the U.S. should remove its support and let Russia name its terms.
They need to have a narrative about what they stand for that commands broad electoral support rather than because they think they're the most sensible, enlightened and grown-up people in the room.
We've seen that gong rung so many times.
https://youtu.be/nvTtr5JfoMo?si=gTYwNaGyuNgs6wJl
(Ironically, if disastrously, she turned out to be right in her analysis of Trump’s chances.)
Oh sorry I was looking at his approval ratings upside down.
Horse is equally unthinkable as its a domestic animal much loved by many.
As far as the French are concerned, the only thing they don't eat is human flesh.. afaik....
https://x.com/super_shaun84/status/1892661538483220818?s=61
I was fairly shocked at how shit the Admiralty and the Navy were institutionally for most of the 19thC, with a terrible approach to educating, training and selecting officers, and almost no central organisation worth its salt because they took almost all their direction from central government.
But, then again, I sort of wasn't.
Catch in a chicken wire enclosure, then go in with sticks.
I doubt it.
"Trump speaks about Ukraine's President Zelensky and says: "I've been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards and you get sick of it...I've had it," he says."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn489e05k09t
I don’t have the words to describe just how much I loathe Trump and Vance .
The sources are telling him what the Economist is telling him.
He does not want to hear it because it means the DONALD* might not be right.
* Otherwise known as "America's Hitler". Can't recall who said this.
Vance wants a Russian victory, in Eastern Europe, because he has some hang ups about European nations.
Has anyone worked out yet why Vance seems to wear eyeliner?
Feel sorry for Led by Donkeys, who are incapable of targeting their flaccid centrist 'activism' at Sir Useless, as sadly he is the fruition of their cherished ambitions. Consequently they are reduced to trying to 'satirise' people who haven't been in office for three years. See also Have I Got News For You. See also most of PB.
Should I be rushing to buy a lottery ticket?
Despite the critical role of air support for Ukraine, Belgian defense officials cite delays in US F-35 deliveries as the main reason for postponing the transfer of F-16s
https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1893012856548762014
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5d6l5lz4jo
Trump is a traitor to his own country, and a menace to others.
The U.S. sees no geopolitical advantage, and perhaps many geopolitical disadvantages, to supporting Ukraine now.
That allowing Russia to prevail is a win for an authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-Western power is not thought relevant or given any weight.
He also thinks Europe at large has no plan for demographic decline apart from importing culturally hostile immigrants.
It’s effectively the Leon critique, and if only Britain were somehow excluded, many of our Brexiters would vigorously agree.
Licking - that's what he forces young women to do
Not being fit to - because he's a fat knacker with a bad diet.
And boots - because he wears them. Jackboots, highly polished, for trampling on lesser races.
Or there may be another meaning, of course.
https://x.com/politlcsglobal/status/1893022684457369895?s=61
Might be a bluff, might not be. Works for Israel.
Think I'll sign off for the evening.
We love trains but these jaunts seem to amuse our family and friends - maybe we are a bit eccentric in our old age !!
Those in Ukraine who bitterly opposed being a Russian fiefdom decided to be sponsored by the USA (and to a lesser extent the EU), who wanted to pull them out of Russia's sphere of influence. That was very much their right, but it was always going to be a change of dominant overlord, not freedom from being dominated. Ukranians aren't stupid and they would have very much known this.
I'm slightly more worried about Musk getting his teeth into the F35 programme, which he has been talking about for some time.
He's targeting "savings" of $65bn (8%) in year one.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5297896/elon-musk-doge-pentagon-dod
I’m not sure you’ve ever heard anything bad about either him or Trump.
Trump does not perceive strength and weakness - he perceives his own misconceived assumptions about strength and weakness.
And those are quite different.
Niall Ferguson has retweeted this thesis, calling it a “possible explanation for recent twists in Trump’s foreign policy”.
Congratulations to both.
Which is bollocks, and kind of undermines his whole oeuvre.
Truss is so far into denial that she is living on a houseboat on Lake Victoria.
I do think it’s fascinating trying to understand the varying ideologies of Trump, Musk, and Vance. They are not uniformly coherent, although it is true they are all nasty fuckers.
In a transactionalist view of the world - "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must", is a a rational, good thing.
Since Ukraine has “no cards”, it is moral duty of the US government (in that view) to screw them as much as they can.
By resisting, Ukraine are being assholes. Not recognising their place in the world.
The Russians are in the “strong” group (again according to this world view) - a nuclear power. So they have a moral duty to their own people to screw Ukraine for everything they can.
Greed is good and might is right.
One Weird Trick To Revitalize Your Economy
https://substack.com/home/post/p-157643292
You lost me at line one.
Suggested perhaps, certainly didn't show.
And, it’s naively short-sighted, for it assumes that other nations won’t react accordingly. That one will never need allies, goodwill, favours that one can call in, that one does not need respect from other powers.
It actually overestimates the USA’s strength, and certainly Russia’s.
Let’s say we get to the point where the UK, France, Scandinavia, maybe Germany, have ramped up defence spending, what happens when the US needs help, and its former allies say “Go fuck yourself.”