Blimey. His whole premiership just became about this and only this.
When Labour were elected I said that a potential second Trump Presidency was the biggest problem on the horizon, but even I didn't think Trump would be as dangerous and chaotic as he has been.
Sadly I think the government has been a bit dozy, and even now is underestimating the threat. That said I'm glad that they are setting concrete targets and heading in the right direction.
I think it will end up being more, and faster. Once you start down this road it gets easier to get realistic and press the accelerator.
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
Blimey. His whole premiership just became about this and only this.
When Labour were elected I said that a potential second Trump Presidency was the biggest problem on the horizon, but even I didn't think Trump would be as dangerous and chaotic as he has been.
Sadly I think the government has been a bit dozy, and even now is underestimating the threat. That said I'm glad that they are setting concrete targets and heading in the right direction.
I think it will end up being more, and faster. Once you start down this road it gets easier to get realistic and press the accelerator.
And it is the right thing to do, as you say.
I think the current government plan is predicated on talking some sense into Trump. I suspect that will not work, and we should be planning for a US that is either absent from or even hostile towards Europe.
Because these spending amounts are percentages of GDP, there's no way to restore the amount spent on aid in the future, unless: Spending on defence falls, or, Other government spending falls as a percentage of GDP (such as pensions or health), or, Taxes rise to increase overall government spending as a percentage of GDP.
Since all those three options are about as likely as Leon not being gratuitously insulting to other PBers, we can conclude that the Prime Minister is being disingenuous when he says that, "We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and rebuild a capability on development."
LOL. Of course you are.
Still. Whatever else you might say, I'm glad that there is at least some degree of action in response to the reality of the situation, and an increase in defence spending.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
Because these spending amounts are percentages of GDP, there's no way to restore the amount spent on aid in the future, unless: Spending on defence falls, or, Other government spending falls as a percentage of GDP (such as pensions or health), or, Taxes rise to increase overall government spending as a percentage of GDP.
Since all those three options are about as likely as Leon not being gratuitously insulting to other PBers, we can conclude that the Prime Minister is being disingenuous when he says that, "We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and rebuild a capability on development."
LOL. Of course you are.
Still. Whatever else you might say, I'm glad that there is at least some degree of action in response to the reality of the situation, and an increase in defence spending.
Blimey. His whole premiership just became about this and only this.
When Labour were elected I said that a potential second Trump Presidency was the biggest problem on the horizon, but even I didn't think Trump would be as dangerous and chaotic as he has been.
Sadly I think the government has been a bit dozy, and even now is underestimating the threat. That said I'm glad that they are setting concrete targets and heading in the right direction.
I think it will end up being more, and faster. Once you start down this road it gets easier to get realistic and press the accelerator.
And it is the right thing to do, as you say.
I think the current government plan is predicated on talking some sense into Trump. I suspect that will not work, and we should be planning for a US that is either absent from or even hostile towards Europe.
Trump's evident sympathy for Moscow shows that he is not inherently anti-European. We just need to follow the ideological winds, as we did under previous US administrations.
Cameron's 0.7% of GDP aid commitment was a product of the Obama era, and Starmer's cuts are a product of the Trump era. There's every reason to believe the special relationship has a strong future.
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
Puts Starmer firmly to the right of David Cameron and the LDs when they were in power on this issue then when they ringfenced overseas aid from cuts and only spent 2% of gdp on defence.
I suspect even Farage and Trump will be applauding Sir Keir on this as will NATO, Oxfam etc probably less so
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
Blimey. His whole premiership just became about this and only this.
When Labour were elected I said that a potential second Trump Presidency was the biggest problem on the horizon, but even I didn't think Trump would be as dangerous and chaotic as he has been.
Sadly I think the government has been a bit dozy, and even now is underestimating the threat. That said I'm glad that they are setting concrete targets and heading in the right direction.
I think it will end up being more, and faster. Once you start down this road it gets easier to get realistic and press the accelerator.
And it is the right thing to do, as you say.
I think the current government plan is predicated on talking some sense into Trump. I suspect that will not work, and we should be planning for a US that is either absent from or even hostile towards Europe.
Trump's evident sympathy for Moscow shows that he is not inherently anti-European. We just need to follow the ideological winds, as we did under previous US administrations.
Cameron's 0.7% of GDP aid commitment was a product of the Obama era, and Starmer's cuts are a product of the Trump era. There's every reason to believe the special relationship has a strong future.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
Blimey. His whole premiership just became about this and only this.
When Labour were elected I said that a potential second Trump Presidency was the biggest problem on the horizon, but even I didn't think Trump would be as dangerous and chaotic as he has been.
Sadly I think the government has been a bit dozy, and even now is underestimating the threat. That said I'm glad that they are setting concrete targets and heading in the right direction.
I think it will end up being more, and faster. Once you start down this road it gets easier to get realistic and press the accelerator.
And it is the right thing to do, as you say.
I think the current government plan is predicated on talking some sense into Trump. I suspect that will not work, and we should be planning for a US that is either absent from or even hostile towards Europe.
Trump's evident sympathy for Moscow shows that he is not inherently anti-European. We just need to follow the ideological winds, as we did under previous US administrations.
Cameron's 0.7% of GDP aid commitment was a product of the Obama era, and Starmer's cuts are a product of the Trump era. There's every reason to believe the special relationship has a strong future.
Sensible move from Starmer to increase defence spending to 2.5% and pay for it by cutting overseas aid
Yes, Sir Keir has played a blinder there. It's regrettable that our soft power through overseas aid will take a hit, but all of that will matter naught when Nige is waving the Russian tanks through the Dover lorry park. Needs must.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
We can first offer them EU (or EEA) membership.
I don’t think quite that, but something new might be coming. A level of EU-lite that many, many likeminded countries can live with. There’s a lot of mid-sized western nations in the market not to be in somebody else’s “sphere of influence”.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
But surely this means that the green suppliers are going to run bitcoin miners or similar to make sure we always use at least one joule of gas?
That's not necessarily a bad thing if it means the UK becomes a power generating and power consuming powerhouse. Our economy might rocket.
Scotland has 16GW of renewables, already exports energy, and has additional 57GW under construction or in planning. The big question is wtf are we going to do with it all.
No issue with any of that - seems great on a national scale. But on the retail scale I'm still paying the gas price for my lighting. Surely there is an electoral offer that could be made to be made to change this system that would be attractive? Why is no-one offering it?
I'd guess that the market price of energy will be much lower as a result anyway, even after taking into account the additional demand more generation will induce.
But write to your MP. I think nodal/regional pricing and smart tariffs that track the hourly spot price of electricity are the way in which households could benefit in the medium-term.
BIB: What mechanism yields a lower price if it always in the interest of generators to consume enough to need gas generation, triggering the price based on wholesale gas? Demand has an inelastic floor, not ceiling.
The point that energy demand has an elastic ceiling is an important one. It's why, despite RCS1000's assertions, renewables will struggle to bring the price of electricty down sufficiently to make fossil fuels uncompetitive. If we don't impose taxes on fossil fuels commensurate with their negative externalities, then we will keep using them and ultimately fry the planet.
They've changed the headline now, but it originally said that thousands of children in England were "falsely accused" of witchcraft, as if the real culprits are getting away with it.
Also seems rather to be skirting over the issue of who - its clearly linked to African immigration. Its not kids watching Grotbags or Sabrina the Teenage Witch on YouTube and getting inspired...
According to a documentary I watched, witchcraft and magic are regulated by a government ministry. Which supports private schools to teach them.
Obviously the problem is furrin, immigrant witches and wizards with their imported, non British magic. Presumably cheaper and undercutting Proper British Magic.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
Well when Britain left the EU it didn't change its name, so why should NATO? I don't actually see USA leaving anyway.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
Sorry - I thought we were all familiar.
Eato is a postulated "Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation" as written about in the Telegraph by Lib Dem MP Mike Martin last week. It is roughly core NATO minus the USA.
In order to usher in a new age of collective European security, we need not move far away from existing foundations. I would propose creating a “Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. Founding members would include Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland (the northern flank); Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland (the central flank); Ukraine, Turkey and Romania (the southern flank); and the UK, France and Germany (the big powers).
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Blimey. His whole premiership just became about this and only this.
When Labour were elected I said that a potential second Trump Presidency was the biggest problem on the horizon, but even I didn't think Trump would be as dangerous and chaotic as he has been.
Sadly I think the government has been a bit dozy, and even now is underestimating the threat. That said I'm glad that they are setting concrete targets and heading in the right direction.
I think that’s right. Good statement, and moving in the right direction. But there will need to be more.
We are so used to it that it's hard to notice that the PM's statement was delivered almost entirely in code. If you were new to this you would have no idea what it was about.
Translated from code it said:
The USA has gone nuts. We need both to be nice to them and hope for better things but at the moment they support and vote with our enemies. So NATO is now the Canada and Europe and Hopefully Turkey Treaty Organisation until further notice. I am looking solemn because only France and the UK have nuclear weapons, and I don't have a clue if and how they work. But I am sure it will be expensive. There is a war on as well. Please finish it quick.
Sensible move from Starmer to increase defence spending to 2.5% and pay for it by cutting overseas aid
Yes, Sir Keir has played a blinder there. It's regrettable that our soft power through overseas aid will take a hit, but all of that will matter naught when Nige is waving the Russian tanks through the Dover lorry park. Needs must.
Exceptionally smart politics from Starmer. The type he always looked like he was capable of making, but the evidence of which has not been very apparent since the GE.
There’s a distance to travel yet, but as a first step into this new world it was a steady one.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
We can first offer them EU (or EEA) membership.
I don’t think quite that, but something new might be coming. A level of EU-lite that many, many likeminded countries can live with. There’s a lot of mid-sized western nations in the market not to be in somebody else’s “sphere of influence”.
Remove the geographical limitations and create a more flexible organisation of liberal democratic states (OLDS), with a football league style promotion and relegation mechanism, say every 4 years. So Hungary and Slovakia are out, Canada is in.
Membership brings with it tariff free trade, security cooperation, regulatory mutual recognition and data sharing, and a liberal visa regime or free movement. It requires countries to meet a series of criteria around rule of law, human rights, transparency and low corruption levels, international sanctions compliance, carbon emissions and whatever else.
Ukraine’s parliament (including the opposition) voted unanimously to affirm that Zelensky’s mandate as president remains legitimate, that no elections can be held because of a war started by Putin— and that a general election will be held as soon as the war ends. https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1894366155537592644
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I’m afraid I think that’s wishful thinking. I can imagine a Democrat being much more warm in tone about supporting allies etc, but the honest truth is that once the support has been pulled and Europe starts funding its defence there will be no appetite from the US to fundamentally alter the dynamics of that arena.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
Well when Britain left the EU it didn't change its name, so why should NATO? I don't actually see USA leaving anyway.
The USA is not quite as North Atlantic as the other states either. It trends towards the subtropical Atlantic, its capital city Mar a Largo is virtually in the Caribbean and now the Gulf of Mexico is the Gulf of America you could argue it’s really a Central American state.
Trump's evident sympathy for Moscow shows that he is not inherently anti-European. We just need to follow the ideological winds, as we did under previous US administrations.
No we fucking don't. That's dangerous, stupid, and ultimately treacherous.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
Sorry - I thought we were all familiar.
Eato is a postulated "Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation" as written about in the Telegraph by Lib Dem MP Mike Martin last week. It is roughly core NATO minus the USA.
In order to usher in a new age of collective European security, we need not move far away from existing foundations. I would propose creating a “Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. Founding members would include Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland (the northern flank); Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland (the central flank); Ukraine, Turkey and Romania (the southern flank); and the UK, France and Germany (the big powers).
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
We spend about a quarter of our aid budget in the UK on asylum seekers. Short of a blanket amnesty it's difficult to cut this.
Of the remainder we spend another quarter (£3 billion) on our own programmes, and the remainder is subscriptions to international bodies, mostly the WHO and UN bodies. Short of withdrawing from these it is hard to cut.
So in effect we can only slash this budget by ceasing aid under our own control.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
We can first offer them EU (or EEA) membership.
I don’t think quite that, but something new might be coming. A level of EU-lite that many, many likeminded countries can live with. There’s a lot of mid-sized western nations in the market not to be in somebody else’s “sphere of influence”.
Remove the geographical limitations and create a more flexible organisation of liberal democratic states (OLDS), with a football league style promotion and relegation mechanism, say every 4 years. So Hungary and Slovakia are out, Canada is in.
Membership brings with it tariff free trade, security cooperation, regulatory mutual recognition and data sharing, and a liberal visa regime or free movement. It requires countries to meet a series of criteria around rule of law, human rights, transparency and low corruption levels, international sanctions compliance, carbon emissions and whatever else.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
No it won't. There are decades-long strategic reasons why USA is disconnecting from Europe and pitoting to the Pacific and a tripolar world. This tendency was obvious even under Biden. Trump's successors will not reverse this trend and we need to work out how to cope.
Our bills go up and up..French bills being reduced in comparison..🤔🥴
To be fair my bills in France were more expensive than in the UK for many years. It’s only since Ukraine that this has changed.
French energy is more regulated and the market is less competitive, though that’s changing. Octopus are there now, for example. But their mix is so nuclear-heavy that this meant much more expensive electricity in the past when gas was cheap, but marginally cheaper electricity now.
Petrol pump prices by contrast used to be way cheaper in France but are now significantly higher than here after we froze fuel duty for over a decade.
James Carville on what Dems should do now. "play dead"
"The Army has a term for this: “tactical pause.” It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years."
Voters will soon be sick of Trump/Musk 2.0:
"The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated — they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk."
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
No it won't. There are decades-long strategic reasons why USA is disconnecting from Europe and pitoting to the Pacific and a tripolar world. This tendency was obvious even under Biden. Trump's successors will not reverse this trend and we need to work out how to cope.
Before Biden. Obama basically said it outright - the Pivot to the Pacific
If you come to the Indo-Pacific - and I am right now staring across a modest chunk of it on soi Nana, Klong Toei, Bangkok - then you realise why. All the energy is here, the buzz, the ideas, the innovation, the oooomph, despite the often dire demographics
America has a vast Pacific coastline and is very much part of this
Europe is not. We are the museum continent. We will become the Venice of the world
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
We can first offer them EU (or EEA) membership.
I don’t think quite that, but something new might be coming. A level of EU-lite that many, many likeminded countries can live with. There’s a lot of mid-sized western nations in the market not to be in somebody else’s “sphere of influence”.
Remove the geographical limitations and create a more flexible organisation of liberal democratic states (OLDS), with a football league style promotion and relegation mechanism, say every 4 years. So Hungary and Slovakia are out, Canada is in.
Membership brings with it tariff free trade, security cooperation, regulatory mutual recognition and data sharing, and a liberal visa regime or free movement. It requires countries to meet a series of criteria around rule of law, human rights, transparency and low corruption levels, international sanctions compliance, carbon emissions and whatever else.
The centrist dad’s dream organisation.
Needs a cup competition.
And a rebel Saudi-funded league called LIV (league of imperialist villains)?
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People die, it's not the end of the world.
For those involved, it is.
No it's not. They leave behind a legacy in the memories of the people who knew them, children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews, friends or any other legacies.
Death is part of life. It needs to be accepted sometimes not everything done to prevent it ever happening.
Our bills go up and up..French bills being reduced in comparison..🤔🥴
France decided on nuclear half a century back. At times it meant their power was far more expensive (and effectively bankrupted their power company before bailout), but it's paid dividends recently.
OTOH, they have a lot of ageing plants...
There are no easy decisions on power, as the timescales can be so long. Until cheap solar came along, but without cheap storage, that's not enough either.
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
We can first offer them EU (or EEA) membership.
I don’t think quite that, but something new might be coming. A level of EU-lite that many, many likeminded countries can live with. There’s a lot of mid-sized western nations in the market not to be in somebody else’s “sphere of influence”.
Remove the geographical limitations and create a more flexible organisation of liberal democratic states (OLDS), with a football league style promotion and relegation mechanism, say every 4 years. So Hungary and Slovakia are out, Canada is in.
Membership brings with it tariff free trade, security cooperation, regulatory mutual recognition and data sharing, and a liberal visa regime or free movement. It requires countries to meet a series of criteria around rule of law, human rights, transparency and low corruption levels, international sanctions compliance, carbon emissions and whatever else.
The centrist dad’s dream organisation.
Not just Centrist Dads. Democratically-minded Eurosceptics too. I suspect it's a pipe dream however. I suspect what you want will require all sorts of rules like preventing the growth of the AI industry and giving the Spanish access to fish in UK waters.
James Carville on what Dems should do now. "play dead"
"The Army has a term for this: “tactical pause.” It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years."
Voters will soon be sick of Trump/Musk 2.0:
"The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated — they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk."
Talking of German words I hereby propose that a unit of energy which is 100 times more expensive than it should be due to political ineptitude is hereafter known as a “Merkel”
“You’ll need 380 Merkels of gas an hour to run that factory so I’m afraid you’re bankrupt”
In even more extreme situations - where the unit of energy costs 1000 times as much for similar reasons - that unit will be known as a “Miliband”
The Miliband is problematic. What's 10^3 milibands? A band or a kilomiliband? What's 10^-3 milibands? A microband or a milimiliband?
You’ve mistaken the miliband for a metric measurement when it’s part of the British Imperial system. A miliband is twelve cleggs.
Not at all. Anyone in the British nonconformist traditions is automatically going to be a SI unit. Joule, Kelvin, Watt, Farad[ay] ... and definitly not approved of by Brexiters such as you.
Joule and Watt and Farad are derived units not SI.
Just looked in the corner of my office where I keep log tables, style guides, Gowers, etc. and fished out the Royal Society 'Quantities, Units and Symbols' which says very clearly on p. 23 that they are SI units, more specifically SI derived units (based on the Newton, metre, Kelvin, and so on).
Indeed you could add Newton to the list given his dodgy alchemical mysticism ...
Agreed, I wasn't specific enough
Always good to check - I've been wrong often enough!
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
More importantly Trump wants the President to be in control of independent federal agencies like the FEC & FCC. How is the US to have a free and fair federal election ever again if Trump gets to decide what is right?
Nursery has invited all parents to a meeting about the recent OFSTED inspection. Report not yet up, inspection was late December - nursery manager changed since then too...
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
It can't be trusted again unless the Constitution is changed. It is now quite clear that despite all the efforts of the Founding Fathers tyranny can take over the American republic as they feared it would.
How you change it god knows?
Maybe you can't construct something that stops a demagogue when 50% of the voters seem to want the return of a monarchy and an entire party seems to be full from top to bottom with people unprepared to even break a slight sweat to defend their 250 year old democracy.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
Sadly, I agree. Except it was just *under* half of the voters, wasn't it?
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
No it won't. There are decades-long strategic reasons why USA is disconnecting from Europe and pitoting to the Pacific and a tripolar world. This tendency was obvious even under Biden. Trump's successors will not reverse this trend and we need to work out how to cope.
Before Biden. Obama basically said it outright - the Pivot to the Pacific
If you come to the Indo-Pacific - and I am right now staring across a modest chunk of it on soi Nana, Klong Toei, Bangkok - then you realise why. All the energy is here, the buzz, the ideas, the innovation, the oooomph, despite the often dire demographics
America has a vast Pacific coastline and is very much part of this
Europe is not. We are the museum continent. We will become the Venice of the world
The pivot to the Pacific is fine; what is not fine is ripping up your treaty (NATO) reliability without proper planning.
As to Europe being a museum, I take a different view. There are quite a lot of people all over the world who would think that to be born in UK, France, Germany, Italy and a number of other European countries is to have drawn a winning ticket in the lottery of life. I am one of them. And I think my (currently) five young grandchildren, all born and living in the UK, have been born into new challenges, but are still all lottery winners.
James Carville on what Dems should do now. "play dead"
"The Army has a term for this: “tactical pause.” It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years."
Voters will soon be sick of Trump/Musk 2.0:
"The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated — they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk."
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
We spend about a quarter of our aid budget in the UK on asylum seekers. Short of a blanket amnesty it's difficult to cut this.
Of the remainder we spend another quarter (£3 billion) on our own programmes, and the remainder is subscriptions to international bodies, mostly the WHO and UN bodies. Short of withdrawing from these it is hard to cut.
So in effect we can only slash this budget by ceasing aid under our own control.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
Missed one.
Trump's administration has also launched a major attack on international law, for example sanctioning individuals who work for the International Criminal Court.
There is a significant difference of values between the USA and modern democracies, some of which was there pre-Trump - as pointed out above.
If we can tap into International Aid for additional defence spending, why not tap into Housing Benefit/UCHE which is spiralling out of control. More homes are needed but the structural issues (planning / skills availability) means that there will continue to be pressure on rents in an overheated rental market. A temporary hold on rents in line with RPI or CPI would mean that the effects of rent surges would be taken out of the system in the way that energy prices were.
The RRB coming up has some measures to dampen rent inflation viz
Only allowing rent increases once per year.
Increasing the minimum notice landlords must give of a rent increase to two months.
Ending the use of rent review clauses in tenancy agreements.
Preventing First-Tier Tribunals increasing the rent beyond that asked for by the landlord.
But given the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in, more could be done to find (temporary) savings out of government spend
James Carville on what Dems should do now. "play dead"
"The Army has a term for this: “tactical pause.” It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years."
Voters will soon be sick of Trump/Musk 2.0:
"The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated — they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk."
I think this is right. Look for the Dems winning 'impossible' special elections and doing well in the midterms - a bit like 2017/18.
That assumes that there will be meaningful midterms. The assault made on the rule of law and freedom of speech in just one month since Jan 20th makes that no certainty whatsoever.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
AIUI, the far left would support extra funding for infrastructure, so it would need to be some kind of Ali-shuffle.
With their €100 bn Zeitenwende one-off slug of extra money running out soon, they need about an extra €30-40bn per annum, so it's quite a stretch unless tax rises / spending cuts.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People die, it's not the end of the world.
For those involved, it is.
No it's not. They leave behind a legacy in the memories of the people who knew them, children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews, friends or any other legacies.
Death is part of life. It needs to be accepted sometimes not everything done to prevent it ever happening.
But you don't want painful deaths or deaths before their time. These are to be discouraged.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
It can't be trusted again unless the Constitution is changed. It is now quite clear that despite all the efforts of the Founding Fathers tyranny can take over the American republic as they feared it would.
How you change it god knows?
Maybe you can't construct something that stops a demagogue when 50% of the voters seem to want the return of a monarchy and an entire party seems to be full from top to bottom with people unprepared to even break a slight sweat to defend their 250 year old democracy.
I think it's likely nearer 30% than 50.
There's not a lot wrong with the constitution, other than Congress and the SC allowing the executive to ride roughshod over it. Constitutional amendments wouldn't make much difference to that.
But I agree the future of US democracy is very much in the balance - and 2026 rather than 2028 is perhaps when it gets decided.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
It can't be trusted again unless the Constitution is changed. It is now quite clear that despite all the efforts of the Founding Fathers tyranny can take over the American republic as they feared it would.
How you change it god knows?
Maybe you can't construct something that stops a demagogue when 50% of the voters seem to want the return of a monarchy and an entire party seems to be full from top to bottom with people unprepared to even break a slight sweat to defend their 250 year old democracy.
The problem is not the constitution: the problem is the people. You cannot solve a people problem with a process solution: at best you can mitigate it.
And as you say, when you built an autocratic movement that such a near-majority of voters will back, the values written in dusty documents will be overwhelmed by the energy of the day.
Never is a long time. The US could be trusted again but it will need many years of reliable, open, outward-looking government, and minimal sign of that being overturned, to reacquire its trustworthiness.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
No it won't. There are decades-long strategic reasons why USA is disconnecting from Europe and pitoting to the Pacific and a tripolar world. This tendency was obvious even under Biden. Trump's successors will not reverse this trend and we need to work out how to cope.
Before Biden. Obama basically said it outright - the Pivot to the Pacific
If you come to the Indo-Pacific - and I am right now staring across a modest chunk of it on soi Nana, Klong Toei, Bangkok - then you realise why. All the energy is here, the buzz, the ideas, the innovation, the oooomph, despite the often dire demographics
America has a vast Pacific coastline and is very much part of this
Europe is not. We are the museum continent. We will become the Venice of the world
The pivot to the Pacific is fine; what is not fine is ripping up your treaty (NATO) reliability without proper planning.
As to Europe being a museum, I take a different view. There are quite a lot of people all over the world who would think that to be born in UK, France, Germany, Italy and a number of other European countries is to have drawn a winning ticket in the lottery of life. I am one of them. And I think my (currently) five young grandchildren, all born and living in the UK, have been born into new challenges, but are still all lottery winners.
Europe risks becoming a museum, but I think it's already starting to wake up to that.
James Carville on what Dems should do now. "play dead"
"The Army has a term for this: “tactical pause.” It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years."
Voters will soon be sick of Trump/Musk 2.0:
"The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated — they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk."
I think this is right. Look for the Dems winning 'impossible' special elections and doing well in the midterms - a bit like 2017/18.
That assumes that there will be meaningful midterms. The assault made on the rule of law and freedom of speech in just one month since Jan 20th makes that no certainty whatsoever.
Yes. I hope it wouldn't work but my own tentative view is that the Trumpist plan genuinely involves not having free and fair elections after the 2024 one. And I suppose this may well apply to 2026 as electoral catastrophe for Trumpists then would make it harder to rig the 2028 one.
Like attacks on free media and free speech this is one to watch, as it is hard to achieve in a country like USA but essential to to good ordering of a proper gangster oligarchy.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
It can't be trusted again unless the Constitution is changed. It is now quite clear that despite all the efforts of the Founding Fathers tyranny can take over the American republic as they feared it would.
How you change it god knows?
Maybe you can't construct something that stops a demagogue when 50% of the voters seem to want the return of a monarchy and an entire party seems to be full from top to bottom with people unprepared to even break a slight sweat to defend their 250 year old democracy.
We are a monarchy, Trump president for life would be just a dictatorship reliant on military support
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
I think that may be optimistic.
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
More importantly Trump wants the President to be in control of independent federal agencies like the FEC & FCC. How is the US to have a free and fair federal election ever again if Trump gets to decide what is right?
Elections are mostly run by the states but it is absolutely his aim to undermine the fairness* of the electoral process - and he will demand (is demanding) that his supporters in those state offices use their position to maximise partisan advantage.
* US elections have a long history of unfairness; one which is not eliminated today, from gerrymandering districts to grossly unequal access to polling stations. However, bad can certainly become worse.
James Carville on what Dems should do now. "play dead"
"The Army has a term for this: “tactical pause.” It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years."
Voters will soon be sick of Trump/Musk 2.0:
"The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated — they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk."
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People die, it's not the end of the world.
For those involved, it is.
No it's not. They leave behind a legacy in the memories of the people who knew them, children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews, friends or any other legacies.
Death is part of life. It needs to be accepted sometimes not everything done to prevent it ever happening.
But you don't want painful deaths or deaths before their time. These are to be discouraged.
Within reason.
And sometimes deaths "before their time" is far better to prevent painful deaths, see assisted dying.
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
We spend about a quarter of our aid budget in the UK on asylum seekers. Short of a blanket amnesty it's difficult to cut this.
Of the remainder we spend another quarter (£3 billion) on our own programmes, and the remainder is subscriptions to international bodies, mostly the WHO and UN bodies. Short of withdrawing from these it is hard to cut.
So in effect we can only slash this budget by ceasing aid under our own control.
FFS if we want to spend on war tos for the boys stick up taxes!
I suspect sticking up taxes is what will happen. Or increase debt and taxes to pay the interest. The aid budget provides political cover to show "difficult decisions being made" but the aid budget has basically been slaughtered by Johnson already
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
Sorry - I thought we were all familiar.
Eato is a postulated "Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation" as written about in the Telegraph by Lib Dem MP Mike Martin last week. It is roughly core NATO minus the USA.
In order to usher in a new age of collective European security, we need not move far away from existing foundations. I would propose creating a “Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. Founding members would include Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland (the northern flank); Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland (the central flank); Ukraine, Turkey and Romania (the southern flank); and the UK, France and Germany (the big powers).
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget. - 3% by 2030. - A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively. - No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from. - Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels. - Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
“EATO”? Why the name change? What has Canada done to us?
We can first offer them EU (or EEA) membership.
I don’t think quite that, but something new might be coming. A level of EU-lite that many, many likeminded countries can live with. There’s a lot of mid-sized western nations in the market not to be in somebody else’s “sphere of influence”.
Remove the geographical limitations and create a more flexible organisation of liberal democratic states (OLDS), with a football league style promotion and relegation mechanism, say every 4 years. So Hungary and Slovakia are out, Canada is in.
Membership brings with it tariff free trade, security cooperation, regulatory mutual recognition and data sharing, and a liberal visa regime or free movement. It requires countries to meet a series of criteria around rule of law, human rights, transparency and low corruption levels, international sanctions compliance, carbon emissions and whatever else.
The centrist dad’s dream organisation.
Not just Centrist Dads. Democratically-minded Eurosceptics too. I suspect it's a pipe dream however. I suspect what you want will require all sorts of rules like preventing the growth of the AI industry and giving the Spanish access to fish in UK waters.
That’s what the EU is for. This is a concentric circle outside, just as the Eurozone is an inner circle.
I’ve always liked the flexible concentric rings approach to integration. I think it could have resolved our Brexit dilemma and left us less lonely after 2016. I’d have been dissatisfied, because I’m a Euro federalist, but I’d still be less dissatisfied and I know my opinion is in a very small minority.
Keir Starmer is planning drastic cuts to Britain’s international aid budget to help pay for a boost to defence spending, the Guardian has been told, as European nations attempt to fill the gap left by Donald Trump on Ukraine.
The prime minister is expected to confirm the UK government’s timeline to increase defence spending to at least 2.5% of GDP by 2030 as he prepares for what will inevitably be a diplomatically fraught visit to Washington DC.
However, he will come under continued pressure to rapidly lift defence spending even further, after he pledged that the UK would “play its full part” in deploying troops to Ukraine for a peacekeeping force in the event of a durable deal after Russia’s invasion.
Defence sources have said that an increase to 2.5%, from 2.3% now, would still be far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.
Sources told the Guardian that Starmer had chosen to reduce the aid budget, perhaps by as much as half, in order to help boost military capability after the new US administration said it was withdrawing its own support from Ukraine.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
As well as increasing the defence spend, the gov't needs to look at some of the no doubt absolute shite the budget is currently being spent on. Solely having an 8.6% increase in men and whatever (2.5/2.3) won't cut it.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
No it won't. There are decades-long strategic reasons why USA is disconnecting from Europe and pitoting to the Pacific and a tripolar world. This tendency was obvious even under Biden. Trump's successors will not reverse this trend and we need to work out how to cope.
Before Biden. Obama basically said it outright - the Pivot to the Pacific
If you come to the Indo-Pacific - and I am right now staring across a modest chunk of it on soi Nana, Klong Toei, Bangkok - then you realise why. All the energy is here, the buzz, the ideas, the innovation, the oooomph, despite the often dire demographics
America has a vast Pacific coastline and is very much part of this
Europe is not. We are the museum continent. We will become the Venice of the world
The UK in joining the CPTPP has taken a step in that pivot too, which I think is a really smart move.
Suspect this all gets quietly reversed if a Democrat (or a sensible Republican) wins the next election.
No it won't. There are decades-long strategic reasons why USA is disconnecting from Europe and pitoting to the Pacific and a tripolar world. This tendency was obvious even under Biden. Trump's successors will not reverse this trend and we need to work out how to cope.
Before Biden. Obama basically said it outright - the Pivot to the Pacific
If you come to the Indo-Pacific - and I am right now staring across a modest chunk of it on soi Nana, Klong Toei, Bangkok - then you realise why. All the energy is here, the buzz, the ideas, the innovation, the oooomph, despite the often dire demographics
America has a vast Pacific coastline and is very much part of this
Europe is not. We are the museum continent. We will become the Venice of the world
I am currently in Barcelona. New businesses are popping up here all the time, many of them started by newcomers. In our office here, we have an Italian CEO, a French CFO and a Finnish head of BD. Our client base is global. The Spanish economy is forecast to grow around 3% this year. Portuguese growth is also pretty healthy, as is Greece's. Meanwhile, the Nordics are significant global innovation hubs that enjoy among the world's highest standards of living. It's not so much Europe that has the problems as France, Germany, the UK and Italy. And their ones do not have to permanent.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
The problem is the constitutional limit on the deficit of 0.35% of GDP.
This the whole issue being talked about. God alone knows what you think you are on about.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
No the Putinist left is the BSW and is anti-immigration. Linke is the pro-immigration anti-Putin Left, though actually mostly interested in domestic issues.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
The problem is the constitutional limit on the deficit of 0.35% of GDP.
This the whole issue being talked about. God alone knows what you think you are on about.
Yes, Merz put short term political advantage over the future of the German economy. But like it or not, he's the next Chancellor, and shifting that debt bar is still essential.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
Yup, ban 'em all.
There is a sober, sensible debate to be had over this:
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy. - There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
The point being overlooked about self-driving cars is not that they will to won't kill people, as all vehicles will. It's rather, I suspect, that people object to the possibility of being killed by a company conducting what amounts to an experiment.
More to do with the psychology (and possibly Musk's evidently blase attitude towards other folk's safety) than the actual odds.
The psychology on risk perception is well established. People are more scared of things they don't have control over. (We are more scare of flying than driving, although driving is more dangerous, because we are doing the driving and someone else is doing the flying.) People are more scared of novel things. A novel thing that we don't control, self-driving cars, will be more scary.
Is that true? About driving and flying and control? It might explain why car drivers are scared of flying but what about car passengers?
Car passengers are equally not in control (cf bus and train passengers) but most people's fear of taxis is the fare or having to listen to the driver, not crashing into the ocean.
Are they used to a passive role so are unafraid of flying? Ex-Arsenal footballer Dennis Bergkamp was famously afraid to fly but was content to be driven in car or coach to distant away games.
Are car drivers more afraid of flying than rail commuters, or is it about the same?
There's a final year project for a psychology undergraduate.
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
On the German election, as I read it the 2 party coalition will lack the supermajority of MPs necessary to do significant changes such as lifting the debt ceiling, and other measures - leaving them subject to a far left / far right blocking minority.
Can anyone elucidate?
There is a nascent plan to lift the ceiling before the new Parliament meets. I do not know the details of how that would work.
It's kind of absurd because Scholz was insisting these last weeks that to find an extra 4 billion for Ukraine the debt brake would have to be lifted, which would take a 2 thirds majority to do constitutionally. Merz refused. After the elections the new parliament will have over a third of MPs from the AfD and the Left. Now, the Left are anyway against the debt brake (but are not in favour of increasing military aid for Ukraine, and want to reduce military spending) but are now in a position to demand concessions before lending their votes to reforming the debt brake. Yesterday they said "We will only vote if there are conditions attached. We will not vote for rearmament."
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time: "In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Given Merz wants to exclude the AfD from power anyway I don't really see the issue, he will be governing with the SPD to may as well use the old CDU and SPD and Green majority from the old parliament.
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Maybe try reading my post, or if you can't understand that read the article, which maybe explains some of it better.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Putinist far right and left differ massively over immigration so couldn't work together anyway.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
The problem is the constitutional limit on the deficit of 0.35% of GDP.
This the whole issue being talked about. God alone knows what you think you are on about.
Yes, Merz put short term political advantage over the future of the German economy. But like it or not, he's the next Chancellor, and shifting that debt bar is still essential.
But might not now happen. I mean a way may be found, or failing that some kind of workaround might be possible. But Merz is not a responsible politician. Compare to the Green leadership who are doing whatever they can to help the incoming government on this issue, despite going into opposition.
Comments
And it is the right thing to do, as you say.
📊 Ref lead of 1pt
REF: 25% (-1)
LAB: 24% (-1)
CON: 22% (+1)
LDEM: 16% (+2)
GRN: 8% (-1)
via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Feb
Chgs. w/ 10 Feb
britainelects.com
Highest Lib Dem score for some time.
SPLORG on 54%
LLG 48 RefCon 47
Con-Ref ratio 0.88:1
Spending on defence falls, or,
Other government spending falls as a percentage of GDP (such as pensions or health), or,
Taxes rise to increase overall government spending as a percentage of GDP.
Since all those three options are about as likely as Leon not being gratuitously insulting to other PBers, we can conclude that the Prime Minister is being disingenuous when he says that, "We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and rebuild a capability on development."
LOL. Of course you are.
Still. Whatever else you might say, I'm glad that there is at least some degree of action in response to the reality of the situation, and an increase in defence spending.
As I read it
- 2.6% by 2027, including a measure of unbundling intelligence from the defence budget.
- 3% by 2030.
- A short runway to not far behind the current US budget but beyond Trump's (legal) Presidential career, which were 3.4% in 2024, and until 2028 respectively.
- No tax increases, but transfer from development budget. He says £13bnper annum, so I'm not sure where the rest is from.
- Recovering the money - several billion - spent on hotels.
- Efficiency in procurement is a big one, as is making sure the Treasury's hands are dipped in the blood.
He's positioned to go whichever way he needs, depending on what Trump does - he could burn down the USA in NATO or reaffirm it. In the former case, Starmer is positioned to talk to Europe from a decently strong position about an embryonic Eato.
Cameron's 0.7% of GDP aid commitment was a product of the Obama era, and Starmer's cuts are a product of the Trump era. There's every reason to believe the special relationship has a strong future.
I suspect even Farage and Trump will be applauding Sir Keir on this as will NATO, Oxfam etc probably less so
In the old parliament (the new one starts from the 25th March at the latest), SPD+Union+Greens have more than 2 thirds, so Merz's cunning plan is to try and amend the debt brake before the new parliament is confirmed. It's an unusual move, as the Bundestag has actually finished its sessions, but maybe it works to recall it? Don't know.
This wouldn't have happened if Merz hadn't been playing politics earlier. He was in favour of keeping the debt brake unchanged in opposition because it made governing impossible, now he wants to reform it. He was warned this would happen, but he's an arsehole.
Obviously the problem is furrin, immigrant witches and wizards with their imported, non British magic. Presumably cheaper and undercutting Proper British Magic.
Eato is a postulated "Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation" as written about in the Telegraph by Lib Dem MP Mike Martin last week. It is roughly core NATO minus the USA.
In order to usher in a new age of collective European security, we need not move far away from existing foundations. I would propose creating a “Euro Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. Founding members would include Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland (the northern flank); Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland (the central flank); Ukraine, Turkey and Romania (the southern flank); and the UK, France and Germany (the big powers).
Article:
https://archive.is/20250221160549/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2025/02/21/nato-is-dead-but-theres-still-time-to-build-a-real-alliance/
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl-union-schuldenbremse-reform-100.html
But there are concerns. The CSU wants to stick to its election promise, as does the CDU 's parliamentary manager Thorsten Frei. Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer believes that "if you want to change the debt rules, you have to discuss it with the Left Party." And even SPD Finance Minister Jörg Kukies is very skeptical that the plan can be implemented in such a short time:
"In my view, it would also be a questionable political signal if constitutional changes were to be made now with an old majority."
Translated from code it said:
The USA has gone nuts. We need both to be nice to them and hope for better things but at the moment they support and vote with our enemies. So NATO is now the Canada and Europe and Hopefully Turkey Treaty Organisation until further notice. I am looking solemn because only France and the UK have nuclear weapons, and I don't have a clue if and how they work. But I am sure it will be expensive. There is a war on as well. Please finish it quick.
There’s a distance to travel yet, but as a first step into this new world it was a steady one.
Membership brings with it tariff free trade, security cooperation, regulatory mutual recognition and data sharing, and a liberal visa regime or free movement. It requires countries to meet a series of criteria around rule of law, human rights, transparency and low corruption levels, international sanctions compliance, carbon emissions and whatever else.
The centrist dad’s dream organisation.
https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1894366155537592644
Reform repositioning moderately in about 3 days, depending what Mr Trump says - maybe.
Our bills go up and up..French bills being reduced in comparison..🤔🥴
Otherwise he would have to offer the AfD harder policies on immigration for their abstention on the debt raising to fund more arms for Ukraine
Of the remainder we spend another quarter (£3 billion) on our own programmes, and the remainder is subscriptions to international bodies, mostly the WHO and UN bodies. Short of withdrawing from these it is hard to cut.
So in effect we can only slash this budget by ceasing aid under our own control.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-02-06/hcws421
FFS if we want to spend on war tos for the boys stick up taxes!
French energy is more regulated and the market is less competitive, though that’s changing. Octopus are there now, for example. But their mix is so nuclear-heavy that this meant much more expensive electricity in the past when gas was cheap, but marginally cheaper electricity now.
Petrol pump prices by contrast used to be way cheaper in France but are now significantly higher than here after we froze fuel duty for over a decade.
"The Army has a term for this: “tactical pause.” It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years."
Voters will soon be sick of Trump/Musk 2.0:
"The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated — they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/opinion/democrats-trump-congress.html
If you come to the Indo-Pacific - and I am right now staring across a modest chunk of it on soi Nana, Klong Toei, Bangkok - then you realise why. All the energy is here, the buzz, the ideas, the innovation, the oooomph, despite the often dire demographics
America has a vast Pacific coastline and is very much part of this
Europe is not. We are the museum continent. We will become the Venice of the world
Trump has already burned down 75 years of USA soft power, with a callousness (or recklessness) which has extended to USAID workers running medical trials being instructed not to remove trial medical devices from the bodies of their patients.
He has done it because just over half of the voters supported him, and movements have been built over decades to build that support, and the nihilistic values it required.
He is also demolishing the Civil Service. Plus the impact on random attacks on allies.
I'd say that the previous position will never come back, and the USA will never be fully trusted again.
Because the German constitution since 2009 has limited the deficit to 0.35% of GDP, there will be no extra money for defence or Ukraine without cutting investments and social security. Making cuts elsewhere to fund Ukraine and the military will be quickest way to ensure a majority for the Putinist far right and left at the next election.
In the last parliament the SPD and Greens desperately wanted to reform the debt brake, but the FDP and Union (and AfD for that matter) refused. In the case of Merz and the CDU this was pure political mischief-making because it was obvious he would need to increase the deficit if he became Chancellor. He was warned this situation was likely to arise, but carried on playing politics because man is not a serious politician but an utter arse.
Death is part of life. It needs to be accepted sometimes not everything done to prevent it ever happening.
At times it meant their power was far more expensive (and effectively bankrupted their power company before bailout), but it's paid dividends recently.
OTOH, they have a lot of ageing plants...
There are no easy decisions on power, as the timescales can be so long. Until cheap solar came along, but without cheap storage, that's not enough either.
I suspect it's a pipe dream however. I suspect what you want will require all sorts of rules like preventing the growth of the AI industry and giving the Spanish access to fish in UK waters.
There's a real opportunity for a moderate Democrat who can loudly and persuasively articulate the case against Trump.
And also for any Dem governor who can clearly improve how their state is managed.
How you change it god knows?
Maybe you can't construct something that stops a demagogue when 50% of the voters seem to want the return of a monarchy and an entire party seems to be full from top to bottom with people unprepared to even break a slight sweat to defend their 250 year old democracy.
As to Europe being a museum, I take a different view. There are quite a lot of people all over the world who would think that to be born in UK, France, Germany, Italy and a number of other European countries is to have drawn a winning ticket in the lottery of life. I am one of them. And I think my (currently) five young grandchildren, all born and living in the UK, have been born into new challenges, but are still all lottery winners.
Trump's administration has also launched a major attack on international law, for example sanctioning individuals who work for the International Criminal Court.
There is a significant difference of values between the USA and modern democracies, some of which was there pre-Trump - as pointed out above.
The RRB coming up has some measures to dampen rent inflation viz
- Only allowing rent increases once per year.
- Increasing the minimum notice landlords must give of a rent increase to two months.
- Ending the use of rent review clauses in tenancy agreements.
- Preventing First-Tier Tribunals increasing the rent beyond that asked for by the landlord.
But given the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in, more could be done to find (temporary) savings out of government spendA short history of rent control in the UK
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06747/
With their €100 bn Zeitenwende one-off slug of extra money running out soon, they need about an extra €30-40bn per annum, so it's quite a stretch unless tax rises / spending cuts.
There's not a lot wrong with the constitution, other than Congress and the SC allowing the executive to ride roughshod over it.
Constitutional amendments wouldn't make much difference to that.
But I agree the future of US democracy is very much in the balance - and 2026 rather than 2028 is perhaps when it gets decided.
And as you say, when you built an autocratic movement that such a near-majority of voters will back, the values written in dusty documents will be overwhelmed by the energy of the day.
Never is a long time. The US could be trusted again but it will need many years of reliable, open, outward-looking government, and minimal sign of that being overturned, to reacquire its trustworthiness.
Like attacks on free media and free speech this is one to watch, as it is hard to achieve in a country like USA but essential to to good ordering of a proper gangster oligarchy.
* US elections have a long history of unfairness; one which is not eliminated today, from gerrymandering districts to grossly unequal access to polling stations. However, bad can certainly become worse.
And sometimes deaths "before their time" is far better to prevent painful deaths, see assisted dying.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-service-work-days-office-wfh-hp535sgqn
Wouldn't it be simpler just to propose the continuation of NATO minus the US and Hungary but including Ukraine?
The world changed 4 weeks ago and the first duty of government is to protect its people
Across the world and especially in Europe charity and duty begins at home and even at 2.5% defence spending needs at least another 1%
Sacrifices have to made and hard choices
I’ve always liked the flexible concentric rings approach to integration. I think it could have resolved our Brexit dilemma and left us less lonely after 2016. I’d have been dissatisfied, because I’m a Euro federalist, but I’d still be less dissatisfied and I know my opinion is in a very small minority.
It's still a fudge, but less of a fudge.
We need to look at NATO-methodology comparable figures.
The SPD can vote to increase the deficit solely to fund Ukraine's extra arms as the price of their support to Merz
Solely having an 8.6% increase in men and whatever (2.5/2.3) won't cut it.
In a live national press conference minutes ago, incoming German Chancellor Frederic Merz called for a nuclear dismantling moratorium.
This is the first step to saving German nuclear plants and restarting them.
https://x.com/energybants/status/1894047845679853967
Right about nuclear though.
This the whole issue being talked about. God alone knows what you think you are on about.
https://x.com/enron/status/1894121133256933435?s=46
But like it or not, he's the next Chancellor, and shifting that debt bar is still essential.
YouGov
Techne
FindOutNow
MoreInCommon
Lab leads with
Opinium
Other pollsters haven't reported this month so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election