Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
At least he's moved on from the odd fluffing George Osborne phase.
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
He's aged... They need a fresher face like the 67-year-old Lowe.
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
He seems to be an extremely hardworking MP, but perhaps a bit of a turbulent priest.
His overall point regarding Farage may be valid, but it seems an odd time to raise it. Thankfully he does seem to shoot at the enemy most of the time.
DOT Secretary Sean Duffy has sent a letter to Mayor Bowser saying all "murals or other forms of artwork within the traveled way" should be removed in the interest of roadway safety. FWIW studies indicate roadway art reduces crashes. https://x.com/rachelweinerwp/status/1897784391008497809
I read that as "mp" not "wp", and thought she meant here !
I think that is perhaps the least of their road safety problems .
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I'll be honest, I think having nukes and a prominent geopolitical position (Both geographically and politically re US bases, trident and so on) makes us more vulnerable than we otherwise would be if the shit hits the fan. To take your own roots, noone is going to nuke New Zealand if WW3 breaks out.
But not because New Zealand “has no nukes”.
In any case, you may well be wrong. Soviet plans actually revealed there WERE plans to nuke New Zealand.
Surely the guns will be on London and Paris before Auckland if push and shove come now though ?
Guns?
My Sekrit plan to attack New Zealand uncovered!
That was designed aiui, in Trump-speak, to "shoot them up the jacksy".
The recent Chinese warship practice in the Tasman went down like a cup of cold sick.
Chinese diplomacy leaves a lot to be desired.
As New Zealand considers its options, I even read a frankly bonkers op ed suggesting that NZ lean back on its “traditional ally, the UK.” Hardly likely!
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I'll be honest, I think having nukes and a prominent geopolitical position (Both geographically and politically re US bases, trident and so on) makes us more vulnerable than we otherwise would be if the shit hits the fan. To take your own roots, noone is going to nuke New Zealand if WW3 breaks out.
But not because New Zealand “has no nukes”.
In any case, you may well be wrong. Soviet plans actually revealed there WERE plans to nuke New Zealand.
Surely the guns will be on London and Paris before Auckland if push and shove come now though ?
This whole discussion rather reminds of Neville Shute
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
I think the people answering Parliamentary Questions have all heard of him !
He asked 20 this week between Monday and Thursday.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Well those countries were either in NATO or were declared Neutral. Article 5 would not have been activated had Russia invaded Finland or Sweden. And as soon as the threat moved from theoretical to actual they made a point of joining NATO to contribute.
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
It's certainly hard to see one right now. But things can change. Perhaps one day in America there will come to power a hard-nosed deal-making President who will use their leverage over Israel and its Arab neighbours in a forceful yet balanced way to force a two state solution.
I don't think many Palestinians, certainly the democratically-elected government of Gaza, wants a two-state solution.
There haven't been elections in almost 20 years in Gaza, so I'm not sure where your "democratically elected" line comes from.
Was exactly my point. Jeez.
My apologies, but you didn't use the irony or sarcasm tags, so I thought you were being serious.
It is an interesting sub-thread - what do you do with a dictatorial government which has arrogated to itself the right to go to war on behalf of a people.
Esp when it has a big army and nuclear weapons like Russia.
A senior White House official said "Trump's rage has been intensifying" in recent days due to Russia's behavior and its escalation of strikes on Ukraine at the same time that he's been pushing for a ceasefire
A senior White House official said "Trump's rage has been intensifying" in recent days due to Russia's behavior and its escalation of strikes on Ukraine at the same time that he's been pushing for a ceasefire
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
I think the people answering Parliamentary Questions have all heard of him !
He asked 20 this week between Monday and Thursday.
Depending on the quality of the questions that might be something to admire. Someone actually doing some work.
That said, having not seen the questions, it could be just another exercise in self aggrandisement.
A senior White House official said "Trump's rage has been intensifying" in recent days due to Russia's behavior and its escalation of strikes on Ukraine at the same time that he's been pushing for a ceasefire
Perhaps Trump realises he’s been lied to by his very good friend, V Putin.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
A senior White House official said "Trump's rage has been intensifying" in recent days due to Russia's behavior and its escalation of strikes on Ukraine at the same time that he's been pushing for a ceasefire
Seems to me a predictable result of Mr Trump's actions. Nevertheless I can believe that when it says 'rage' it means rage and that's really not good for an elderly person's health.
The recent Chinese warship practice in the Tasman went down like a cup of cold sick.
Chinese diplomacy leaves a lot to be desired.
As New Zealand considers its options, I even read a frankly bonkers op ed suggesting that NZ lean back on its “traditional ally, the UK.” Hardly likely!
The UK has managed to bolster its global reputation and influence in the last couple of weeks, as has France. A relief for France which has been on the end of a battering in Francophone Africa for several years.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that beat combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
Switzerland was neutral long before the development of the Cold War and is protected only by dint of its geographic position which to be faiur it can't do much about. Most of the countries around it weere at war with each other for significant parts of history so I can't really criticise them for taking advantage of their natural defences.
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
He's one of those old school City reactionaries afaics. So hardly a big change from Farage.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that beat combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
Switzerland was neutral long before the development of the Cold War and is protected only by dint of its geographic position which to be faiur it can't do much about. Most of the countries around it weere at war with each other for significant parts of history so I can't really criticise them for taking advantage of their natural defences.
It’s been happy to hold and launder the ill gotten gains of distasteful characters around the world for a long time though. To be fair it’s cleaned up its act (largely) in recent years.
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
He's one of those old school City reactionaries afaics. So hardly a big change from Farage.
I think you mean City revolutionaries. You're the city reactionary these days.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I'll be honest, I think having nukes and a prominent geopolitical position (Both geographically and politically re US bases, trident and so on) makes us more vulnerable than we otherwise would be if the shit hits the fan. To take your own roots, noone is going to nuke New Zealand if WW3 breaks out.
But not because New Zealand “has no nukes”.
In any case, you may well be wrong. Soviet plans actually revealed there WERE plans to nuke New Zealand.
Surely the guns will be on London and Paris before Auckland if push and shove come now though ?
This whole discussion rather reminds of Neville Shute
A good 35 years ago, but I read "No Highway" at school.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
At least he's moved on from the odd fluffing George Osborne phase.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that beat combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
Switzerland was neutral long before the development of the Cold War and is protected only by dint of its geographic position which to be faiur it can't do much about. Most of the countries around it weere at war with each other for significant parts of history so I can't really criticise them for taking advantage of their natural defences.
It’s been happy to hold and launder the ill gotten gains of distasteful characters around the world for a long time though. To be fair it’s cleaned up its act (largely) in recent years.
And has maintained a daily useful military. While it may or may not be able to defend itself against its immediate neighbours, it could give a serious bloody nose to anyone who had a poke. Ireland they are not.
A senior White House official said "Trump's rage has been intensifying" in recent days due to Russia's behavior and its escalation of strikes on Ukraine at the same time that he's been pushing for a ceasefire
Wait, Russia's attacks on Ukraine have intensified after he withdrew US support for Ukraine? I mean, who could have predicted that?
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
What is “stupid”, in terms of pure, cold-blooded, realpolitik, about bleeding Russia of men, money, and armoured vehicles? It’s what people like Kissinger, Talleyrand, Palmerston etc. would have done.
This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.
The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.
I'd also add that he is wrong that the west has underestimated Russian economic and military strength. The reverse is true.
The was in Ukraine is one of those occasions where doing the morally right thing coincides with doing the strategically advantageous thing.
This is palpable bollocks. I know PB is not “the entire west” but it’s quite a good sample of mainstream educated western/British opinion
From month 3 of the war it was an endless stream of “Russia is collapsing”, “look at their stupid tanks”, “Putin is dying”, “any minute now the Russian economy will implode”
None of this has happened. And when some of us, like me and @topping and @Dura_Ace and @Luckyguy1983 dared to point out that Ukraine was in trouble we got called fucking appeasers and putinist shills for our pains
There has been a lot of over-optomistic prediction of Russian collapse over the years here on PB, it has to be said.
However, when the invasion started, I think the consensus was that if Ukraine could last two weeks it would have done better than expected. Certainly no-one expected Ukraine to launch a counter invasion.
We haven't heard much about the Kerch Bridge lately. Have the Russians managed to ensure it's security?
I'm not confident, but I note that the Mirage 2000s have just been reported in action for the first time.
And they can carry French AASM Hammer Glide Bombs, which I think work with the European GNSS Satellite Guidance system, so are Trump-proof.
The question is whether a version of the Hammer given to Ukraine is a suitable munition, and the strike is expedient.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
I’m off to Uruguay soonish. So I will literally be able to tell you
Not least cause I have also been to Chile several times - and all over the country
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
He's one of those old school City reactionaries afaics. So hardly a big change from Farage.
I think you mean City revolutionaries. You're the city reactionary these days.
I'm only reactionary in the sense of clinging to the traditional meaning of words like reactionary.
Switzerland is fascinating. As far as I can tell it’s essentially a combined German-French offshore centre, protected by a ring of mountains. So not a scalable model for a country like the UK.
Yet it maintains a strong advanced manufacturing sector alongside its status as a financial hub.
If Chile wasn’t seven trillion miles from anywhere it would be a damn fine place to live
All kinds of climates, huge coast, mighty mountains. Great wine. Quite cultured people. Solid commie free past thanks to the blessed Pinochet. Much safer than most of Latin America
The wine lands are particularly lush, green and alluring. And the atacama is sublime
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
I’m off to Uruguay soonish. So I will literally be able to tell you
Not least cause I have also been to Chile several times - and all over the country
When I was plotting my escape options in the event of nuclear war back in 2022 Santiago or Montevideo would have come out top had it not been for the Covid restrictions then in force which made rapid travel there impossible. Hence Morocco ended up winning.
Switzerland is fascinating. As far as I can tell it’s essentially a combined German-French offshore centre, protected by a ring of mountains. So not a scalable model for a country like the UK.
Yet it maintains a strong advanced manufacturing sector alongside its status as a financial hub.
Lots to learn.
An offshore centre protected by a geographical barrier between two larger powers? That doesn’t sound a million miles away from the UK’s position.
Thought for the day: what do the Tories and Reform have in common?
In both cases their most effective politician is not the leader. Jenrick for the Tories and Lowe for Reform. Both of them probably see eye-to-eye on quite a lot. Could they team up, and if so, under which banner?
You're writing off Nigel Farage? This feels like a moment.
Literally nobody has heard of Rupert Lowe. He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
I think the people answering Parliamentary Questions have all heard of him !
He asked 20 this week between Monday and Thursday.
Depending on the quality of the questions that might be something to admire. Someone actually doing some work.
That said, having not seen the questions, it could be just another exercise in self aggrandisement.
It's mainly fishing / research, but with some constituency stuff mixed in - when I looked at it after @Luckyguy1983 pointed out his productivity. TBF all parties do it.
Some need a Regular Expression. He's after how many Royal Visitors we have:
Written Answers — Home Office: Visas: Married People ( 6 Mar 2025) Rupert Lowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information her Department holds on the number and proportion of spousal visas granted to people who were (a) first and (b) second cousins to their spouse in 2024.
Switzerland is fascinating. As far as I can tell it’s essentially a combined German-French offshore centre, protected by a ring of mountains. So not a scalable model for a country like the UK.
Yet it maintains a strong advanced manufacturing sector alongside its status as a financial hub.
Lots to learn.
Britain maintains a strong advanced manufacturing sector and is a financial hub too.
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 16m Crikey. This is moving quicker than I expected. 'Poland must pursue the most advanced capabilities, including nuclear and modern unconventional weapons.'
Well yes, the current Trump administration makes nuclear proliferation inevitable.
And with more (and more unstable) countries getting the bomb, it's only a matter of time before someone detonates one of the things.
When the history books are written in 50 years time - the greatest question that people won't get is how on earth did someone as inconsistent and unsuitable as Trump become President twice...
If there's anyone writing (accurate) history books
More likely the history books will asking how did the agendaist left seize control of the institutions of the west with no-one noticing. Why was Trump the person who noticed when thousands who saw themselves as more able than him just let it pass. Unlike Starmer, Biden wasn't an obvious Rubicon that should not have been passed. The change in the UK will be more understated but in many ways more vicious against those who have stolen the state from the people.
A weird view, in the UK at least. I'm in my mid-50s, all governments in my lifetime have been to the authoritarian right of me (except maybe the Coalition, which was just to the right) and I'm not left wing enough to have voted Labour in a GE.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
I’m off to Uruguay soonish. So I will literally be able to tell you
Not least cause I have also been to Chile several times - and all over the country
When I was plotting my escape options in the event of nuclear war back in 2022 Santiago or Montevideo would have come out top had it not been for the Covid restrictions then in force which made rapid travel there impossible. Hence Morocco ended up winning.
Have you been? I’m looking for Uruguay tips - something unusual. I’m doing the normal Montevideo, wine country, punta del este itinerary. It would be good to squeeze in something unusual. A bit of NOOM
Everything I’ve read indicates Uruguay is rather devoid of Noom. Pleasant and sunny and all that but no noom
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
I’m off to Uruguay soonish. So I will literally be able to tell you
Not least cause I have also been to Chile several times - and all over the country
I've just written to Michael Gove explaining that we Spectator readers would prefer to see life in God awful hellholes from the perspective of a backpacker rather than a 5* tourist.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I'll be honest, I think having nukes and a prominent geopolitical position (Both geographically and politically re US bases, trident and so on) makes us more vulnerable than we otherwise would be if the shit hits the fan. To take your own roots, noone is going to nuke New Zealand if WW3 breaks out.
But not because New Zealand “has no nukes”.
In any case, you may well be wrong. Soviet plans actually revealed there WERE plans to nuke New Zealand.
Surely the guns will be on London and Paris before Auckland if push and shove come now though ?
This whole discussion rather reminds of Neville Shute
On the Beach. A contemplative little film (I never read the book). The ending is bleak.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
I’m off to Uruguay soonish. So I will literally be able to tell you
Not least cause I have also been to Chile several times - and all over the country
When I was plotting my escape options in the event of nuclear war back in 2022 Santiago or Montevideo would have come out top had it not been for the Covid restrictions then in force which made rapid travel there impossible. Hence Morocco ended up winning.
Have you been? I’m looking for Uruguay tips - something unusual. I’m doing the normal Montevideo, wine country, punta del este itinerary. It would be good to squeeze in something unusual. A bit of NOOM
Everything I’ve read indicates Uruguay is rather devoid of Noom. Pleasant and sunny and all that but no noom
Your sort of place. There's only 958 of them in the whole country.
One of the side effects of nuclear proliferation is that it makes the UK, France and the other confirmed nuclear powers relatively less powerful.
The UK’s boast that it is is a “nuclear power” and “permanent member of the Security Council” is made hollow.
Trump is a disaster.
I am not sure I am that concerned about Britain being less powerful in those terms. If I look around at the countries I admire, the Scandinavian states and Switzerland for example I think they are powerful and influential in their own ways without strutting about on the world stage.
I have no issue with is having nukes and I think the seat on the Security Council is very useful, not least because it protects up from vexatious diplomatic attacks, but I would not consider it can national disaster if we were just considered as one more fortunate first world country.
Those countries you admire have sheltered under a NATO defence umbrella.
Not Switzerland. But I don’t think Switzerland is that admirable. Some good points, some less good.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
I’m off to Uruguay soonish. So I will literally be able to tell you
Not least cause I have also been to Chile several times - and all over the country
When I was plotting my escape options in the event of nuclear war back in 2022 Santiago or Montevideo would have come out top had it not been for the Covid restrictions then in force which made rapid travel there impossible. Hence Morocco ended up winning.
Have you been? I’m looking for Uruguay tips - something unusual. I’m doing the normal Montevideo, wine country, punta del este itinerary. It would be good to squeeze in something unusual. A bit of NOOM
Everything I’ve read indicates Uruguay is rather devoid of Noom. Pleasant and sunny and all that but no noom
Your sort of place. There's only 958 of them in the whole country.
Less than a thousand centrist dads? Farting out their ludicrously boring middlebrow opinions?!
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
It's certainly hard to see one right now. But things can change. Perhaps one day in America there will come to power a hard-nosed deal-making President who will use their leverage over Israel and its Arab neighbours in a forceful yet balanced way to force a two state solution.
I don't think many Palestinians, certainly the democratically-elected government of Gaza, wants a two-state solution.
There haven't been elections in almost 20 years in Gaza, so I'm not sure where your "democratically elected" line comes from.
Was exactly my point. Jeez.
My apologies, but you didn't use the irony or sarcasm tags, so I thought you were being serious.
It is an interesting sub-thread - what do you do with a dictatorial government which has arrogated to itself the right to go to war on behalf of a people.
Esp when it has a big army and nuclear weapons like Russia.
Comments
He’s the Lesotho of the hard right.
His overall point regarding Farage may be valid, but it seems an odd time to raise it. Thankfully he does seem to shoot at the enemy most of the time.
I think that is perhaps the least of their road safety problems
Chinese diplomacy leaves a lot to be desired.
As New Zealand considers its options, I even read a frankly bonkers op ed suggesting that NZ lean back on its “traditional ally, the UK.” Hardly likely!
Kamala Harris to decide whether to run for California governor by end of summer
He asked 20 this week between Monday and Thursday.
A senior White House official said "Trump's rage has been intensifying" in recent days due to Russia's behavior and its escalation of strikes on Ukraine at the same time that he's been pushing for a ceasefire
US unreliability means a policy void unknown since the fall of Singapore in 1942.
That said, having not seen the questions, it could be just another exercise in self aggrandisement.
What is the country in the world that best combines high quality of life and GDP with democracy, independence from any geopolitical or military alliance or power, but avoiding the ethical shortcomings of neutrality under the de facto protection of neighbours?
High quality of life and GDP rules out most of the developing world. Democracy rules out Singapore, UAE and other wealthy entrepôts. Independence from military alliances rules out NATO, Japan, Korea, ANZ, Israel. The last criterion rules out Ireland or Switzerland.
Uruguay or Chile?
Good evening, everybody.
I guess he is prepared to screw his buddy Vlad to get it...
It's a very small overlap on the old Venn diagram, at best.
And they can carry French AASM Hammer Glide Bombs, which I think work with the European GNSS Satellite Guidance system, so are Trump-proof.
The question is whether a version of the Hammer given to Ukraine is a suitable munition, and the strike is expedient.
Not least cause I have also been to Chile several times - and all over the country
As far as I can tell it’s essentially a combined German-French offshore centre, protected by a ring of mountains. So not a scalable model for a country like the UK.
Yet it maintains a strong advanced manufacturing sector alongside its status as a financial hub.
Lots to learn.
All kinds of climates, huge coast, mighty mountains. Great wine. Quite cultured people. Solid commie free past thanks to the blessed Pinochet. Much safer than most of Latin America
The wine lands are particularly lush, green and alluring. And the atacama is sublime
Some need a Regular Expression. He's after how many Royal Visitors we have:
Written Answers — Home Office: Visas: Married People ( 6 Mar 2025)
Rupert Lowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information her Department holds on the number and proportion of spousal visas granted to people who were (a) first and (b) second cousins to their spouse in 2024.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=rupert+lowe+section:wrans+section:wms
Everything I’ve read indicates Uruguay is rather devoid of Noom. Pleasant and sunny and all that but no noom
NEW THREAD
Get in! Montevideo here I come