Off topic: I can’t be the only person who fears that the Loser will try to give Alaska back to the Russians, when he meets Putin. But the symbolism of the meeting place is suspicious.
(For the humor-impaired: All right, I am joking. Mostly.)
Trump will want to keep Alaska. He would prefer to give the Russians California.
Split the difference, Hawaii?
Ok, but California has got more democratic votes to get rid of.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Places tongue in cheek. Let’s make the world a better place by bombing Moscow, Tel Aviv, Clacton and Mar a Lago. Removes tongue from cheek.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
I must respond to a scathing attack on my gardening knowledge and integrity. Dariel Francis claims I am wrong about “leaving spuds in the ground till February” (Letters, 6 August). I never said I would – and I reject this scandalous and deeply hurtful accusation. I said “digging ground for potatoes” in February. That means manuring and preparing the ground, before planting the potatoes in March or April. Save our potatoes – and save our allotments! Jeremy Corbyn MP
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Places tongue in cheek. Let’s make the world a better place by bombing Moscow, Tel Aviv, Clacton and Mar a Lago. Removes tongue from cheek.
Idle speculation, if the FISU were to ‘accidentally’ employ a nerdy loner in Alaska to take out the enemies of Ukraine, would it be Trump or Putin first on the list for maximum benefit?
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I must respond to a scathing attack on my gardening knowledge and integrity. Dariel Francis claims I am wrong about “leaving spuds in the ground till February” (Letters, 6 August). I never said I would – and I reject this scandalous and deeply hurtful accusation. I said “digging ground for potatoes” in February. That means manuring and preparing the ground, before planting the potatoes in March or April. Save our potatoes – and save our allotments! Jeremy Corbyn MP
I must respond to a scathing attack on my gardening knowledge and integrity. Dariel Francis claims I am wrong about “leaving spuds in the ground till February” (Letters, 6 August). I never said I would – and I reject this scandalous and deeply hurtful accusation. I said “digging ground for potatoes” in February. That means manuring and preparing the ground, before planting the potatoes in March or April. Save our potatoes – and save our allotments! Jeremy Corbyn MP
At least writing that was ten minutes he wasn't buggering up the country's future.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Places tongue in cheek. Let’s make the world a better place by bombing Moscow, Tel Aviv, Clacton and Mar a Lago. Removes tongue from cheek.
Bombing Clacton is pointless as it's bombed out already.
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
Guido speculated Andrew Gwynne might be willing to step down for Burnham. He has a massive majority.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Places tongue in cheek. Let’s make the world a better place by bombing Moscow, Tel Aviv, Clacton and Mar a Lago. Removes tongue from cheek.
Bombing Clacton is pointless as it's bombed out already.
In any case Farage only ever pops in to shoot a Social Media video on rare occasions.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
That won't, of course, provide a stable solution. Quite a few residents, although by no means all, of the Donbass region were quite happy, indeed preferred, being Ukrainian. Under Putin, of course, those vocal about might well find themselves being 'rehomed' a great deal nearer Vladivostok than Kyiv.
Well they can move then, as can residents of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia who want to be Russian
There are not many maniacally hopak dancing Ukranian hyper-nationalists left in those oblasts. They have either already left or are dead. Although people in those areas were able to default on all debt including mortgages without consequence so they might think twice about moving back into the clutches of the Ukrainian legal system, despite any patriotic attachment.
What about those Ukrainians in territory still in Ukrainian hands, which will now be handed straight over to Russia?
I find your attitude towards Ukrainians very odd - you seem to make them out to be untermensch. I see f-all criticism of Russia, Russians and Putin, but lots of Ukraine, Ukrainians and Zelenskyy.
If you drew a Venn diagram, of Putin bros., Wehrmacht bros., and Lost Causers, there would be quite an overlap.
Police are arresting protesters in London at a demonstration in support of proscribed group Palestine Action.
More than 100 people simultaneously unveiled placards with the same message "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" at the protest, organised by Defend Our Juries at Westminster's Parliament Square.
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
A strong correlation between the number of immigrants in the UK and the amount of crime. But hang on, what hell is this? - it's a bloomin' *negative* correlation. Violent crime has halved (!) since we "opened the floodgates".
On no no no. We can't have this. Need to redouble our efforts. Concentrate on shoplifting and phone-snatching and scour the news for crimes done by Afghans. Let's get to it!
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
If the ball was to come loose out the back of the scrum, of the likely runners and riders, who would you vote for?
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
Guido speculated Andrew Gwynne might be willing to step down for Burnham. He has a massive majority.
But its Guido, so probably BS.
'We need to parachute back a retread from the Brown government who got booed on a footy pitch because none of our 400 MPs can save us' Labour 2025 in action.
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
Let me guess, you're yearning for a return of the Ed M
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
It's quite a turn around from his 10m are on benefits, no work ethic, end of times from only a couple of years ago.
Not really. He's still big on welfare reform. His column a few weeks ago was on that. He's a classic free market, liberal tory.
What he's refuting here is the false narrative of a Britain polluted beyond recognition by the mass import of foreign undesirables - ie the main plank of Reform propaganda.
And good for him. It needs pushback. You can't move online these days without wading through a bucket of that shit.
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
Guido speculated Andrew Gwynne might be willing to step down for Burnham. He has a massive majority.
But its Guido, so probably BS.
'We need to parachute back a retread from the Brown government who got booed on a footy pitch because none of our 400 MPs can save us' Labour 2025 in action.
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
Let me guess, you're yearning for a return of the Ed M
No, I like and rate Ed but he's better as an influential cabinet minister than as leader. And he had his shot.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts and tax rises to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
Let me guess, you're yearning for a return of the Ed M
No, I like and rate Ed but he's better as an influential cabinet minister than as leader. And he had his shot.
I suspect he'd probably do more for Labour's chances if he was an uninfluential cabinet minister, or indeed an uninfluential backbencher
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
Guido speculated Andrew Gwynne might be willing to step down for Burnham. He has a massive majority.
But its Guido, so probably BS.
'We need to parachute back a retread from the Brown government who got booed on a footy pitch because none of our 400 MPs can save us' Labour 2025 in action.
Yes, they are a pitiful party of government with 400 no marks. So they think they need Burnhams milquetoast ratings to rescue them. Like when Brown brought Mandy back into his festering corpse of a government.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Places tongue in cheek. Let’s make the world a better place by bombing Moscow, Tel Aviv, Clacton and Mar a Lago. Removes tongue from cheek.
Bombing Clacton is pointless as it's bombed out already.
In any case Farage only ever pops in to shoot a Social Media video on rare occasions.
Funny you should say that. My wife worked for one of the largest companies in our constituency. The local MP would phone up for a visit so he could update himself on the 'business environment'. He would spend a bit of time and go for a walk around but spent more time in getting his pic taken with the company and staff as background. Slimy was the word she would use to describe him - but it is a blue rosette on a donkey constituency (for the moment).
It's odd that they don't seem to clock the body language around them, or don't care, as long as they get the pic.
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
A strong correlation between the number of immigrants in the UK and the amount of crime. But hang on, what hell is this? - it's a bloomin' *negative* correlation. Violent crime has halved (!) since we "opened the floodgates".
On no no no. We can't have this. Need to redouble our efforts. Concentrate on shoplifting and phone-snatching and scour the news for crimes done by Afghans. Let's get to it!
Didn't all the really dodgy ones get sent to Australia?
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
If the ball was to come loose out the back of the scrum, of the likely runners and riders, who would you vote for?
Honestly don't know. Ticks would be (i) woman (ii) genuine intellect (iii) warm personality (iv) driven and robust (v) confident and articulate (vi) soft left
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
It's quite a turn around from his 10m are on benefits, no work ethic, end of times from only a couple of years ago.
I have a little theory about why some columnists and celebs become radicalised to the right or left - usually right - and others become radically deradicalised (Nelson is perhaps not quite in this space but Paul Mason seems to be, as are several erstwhile true blue Tories who’ve become centrist dads over the years - Matthew D’Ancona for example).
I think it’s about experiencing hate on social media. Occasionally you get piled on by people on your own side, usually for not being extreme enough. Quite a lonely experience I imagine. But sometimes you’ll get a groundswell of support from others, and if those are on the other side, you may find yourself drifting towards them. Human nature.
So while the normal engagement feedback loop is towards radicalisation, occasionally it can operate the other way.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
You left out of “Wages trapping millions in poverty”
- high cost of housing
I know many people who work in order to pay for a tiny square footage located so that they can work to pay for a tiny footage….
I must respond to a scathing attack on my gardening knowledge and integrity. Dariel Francis claims I am wrong about “leaving spuds in the ground till February” (Letters, 6 August). I never said I would – and I reject this scandalous and deeply hurtful accusation. I said “digging ground for potatoes” in February. That means manuring and preparing the ground, before planting the potatoes in March or April. Save our potatoes – and save our allotments! Jeremy Corbyn MP
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
If the ball was to come loose out the back of the scrum, of the likely runners and riders, who would you vote for?
Honestly don't know. Ticks would be (i) woman (ii) genuine intellect (iii) warm personality (iv) driven and robust (v) confident and articulate (vi) soft left
She will emerge when I rub the lamp.
Its (iii) that's the big problem i think. All very waspish on the Labour front bench.
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
If the ball was to come loose out the back of the scrum, of the likely runners and riders, who would you vote for?
Honestly don't know. Ticks would be (i) woman (ii) genuine intellect (iii) warm personality (iv) driven and robust (v) confident and articulate (vi) soft left
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
Let me guess, you're yearning for a return of the Ed M
No, I like and rate Ed but he's better as an influential cabinet minister than as leader. And he had his shot.
I suspect he'd probably do more for Labour's chances if he was an uninfluential cabinet minister, or indeed an uninfluential backbencher
No, if one looks beyond the geeky look and manner one sees something not too thick on the ground these days in any party - a politician with intellect, energy, personal integrity, and sense of mission.
I must respond to a scathing attack on my gardening knowledge and integrity. Dariel Francis claims I am wrong about “leaving spuds in the ground till February” (Letters, 6 August). I never said I would – and I reject this scandalous and deeply hurtful accusation. I said “digging ground for potatoes” in February. That means manuring and preparing the ground, before planting the potatoes in March or April. Save our potatoes – and save our allotments! Jeremy Corbyn MP
Were they jacket potatoes?
Got to be Red Potatoes, not going to be King Edward or Jersey Royals for Comrade Jezza.
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
You left out of “Wages trapping millions in poverty”
- high cost of housing
I know many people who work in order to pay for a tiny square footage located so that they can work to pay for a tiny footage….
Indeed; it was a non-exhaustive list. I could also add "high commuting cost / poor public transport", which increases housing demand in certain areas...
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
If the Tories cant come up with an offer and strategy to beat Nigel Farage and his crack team of unknowns and nut jobs they deserve to rot in their ruin. Lee feckin Anderson is their chief whip. Mr twelve parties a year.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
The opposite, Germany was only defeated in WW1 once the US entered the War in 1917.
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
If the ball was to come loose out the back of the scrum, of the likely runners and riders, who would you vote for?
Honestly don't know. Ticks would be (i) woman (ii) genuine intellect (iii) warm personality (iv) driven and robust (v) confident and articulate (vi) soft left
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
You left out of “Wages trapping millions in poverty”
- high cost of housing
I know many people who work in order to pay for a tiny square footage located so that they can work to pay for a tiny footage….
But think of the advantages such people have in living near to so many galleries and shows and restaurants.
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Telegraph, Times and Tory BBC have published articles against Farage and doomsterism. Has Nige threatened a news tax?
I haven't read any of the articles, but there is far too much doomsterism about. We can be far too "everything's hunky-dory" and ignore problems; but we also can go too far the other way and say "everything's awful", when it really is not.
Take climate change / green energy. We can look at our current situation and say "We've got to go further and faster, we're doing really badly and we're doomed,", or "we've done well so far, but there's further to go. Let's have another push!" Both could accurately sum up the current situation, but I think the latter is much more useful.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
The opposite, Germany was only defeated in WW1 once the US entered the War in 1917.
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
You really don't know much history do you. Go and read about the naval race and then we can talk.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
The opposite, Germany was only defeated in WW1 once the US entered the War in 1917.
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
On your last point; it was also the Soviet Union's internal contradictions and lies that saw it fall. IMO its failure was much more to do with internal factors than external. They spent decades lying to themselves, and the lies eventually became too large to contain.
The US (and China...) should really consider that. Especially the former.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
You left out of “Wages trapping millions in poverty”
- high cost of housing
I know many people who work in order to pay for a tiny square footage located so that they can work to pay for a tiny footage….
But think of the advantages such people have in living near to so many galleries and shows and restaurants.
OT - Burnham may want to be a MP but where exactly would he win a seat? Can you name anywhere that a Lab by-election would be a probability let alone a certainty?
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
I'm a member and should there be a leadership election I'm unlikely to vote for Rayner or (if he's there) Burnham.
If the ball was to come loose out the back of the scrum, of the likely runners and riders, who would you vote for?
Honestly don't know. Ticks would be (i) woman (ii) genuine intellect (iii) warm personality (iv) driven and robust (v) confident and articulate (vi) soft left
She will emerge when I rub the lamp.
I think you're describing Liz Kendall.
Chances of electoral victory, 2-4%
Hits some of the marks but she's on the right of the party and I don't find her superbright.
Edit to my "personality" checker - I'm looking for warm and *unaffected*.
Political leaders, these days, need to be able to be a little 'unplugged' in public. Talk freely, be themselves, riff around, not be rigid for fear of mis-speaking.
It's Starmer's biggest problem that he struggles with this.
@WSJ Breaking: Russian President Vladimir Putin told the U.S. he'll halt the war in exchange for Eastern Ukraine
Trump claims “President Putin I believe wants to see peace” and acknowledges Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions (unclear what Russia’s concessions will be, if any) https://x.com/atrupar/status/1953915459708842361
There's the problem, right there.
As was posted on the previous thread, the US is looking for a ceasefire on current lines ie Russia keeps the territory it now occupies but no more.
Realistically there is no alternative to the above if you want Putin to accept a ceasefire and if Zelensky has not already pushed the Russians back from there he likely never will
The deal is that Russia gets to keep stolen territory, sanctions relief from the US, and a pause in the fighting. And absolving of responsibility for a war of aggression, and mass murder of civilians.
Ukraine gets a pause in the fighting, and a promise from Putin - which is of (many times demonstrated) zero value.
And Ukraine and Europe get to prepare for the next invasion, without US help.
If Trump has indeed sold out Europe in this manner, there may be no alternative for now. But please don't pretend that it's any kind of deal which includes Ukraine. Or Europe.
How does the US force Europe and Ukraine to accept?
He can bring the UK to heel easily enough by threatening Trident. Probably tariffs for the EU.
Ukraine doesn't matter at all. It's a failed stated that is entirely dependent on its parasitical relationship with the taxpayers of the EU and UK. I hope they think Hunter Biden was worth it. If they'd fucked him over when Trump asked, they'd be in a far happier position now.
A failed state which has fought off the largest army in Europe for three years ? And continues to do so, while Russia relies on tens of thousands of foreign troops and the industrial support of China.
The UK was similarly dependent on its parasitical relationship with the US during WWII. Were we a failed state back then ?
Russia has been a full on gangster state since the murderer and gangster Lenin killed his way to the top. Putin has the same territorial impulses as Stalin. A Russia which took over your 'failed state', with its human resources, and industrial capacity would represent an enormous future threat to Europe.
Russia has been a malign influence throughout my lifetime. Its sole ambition seems to be to make life as miserable for everyone else as it is for the average Russian. The world would be a better place if Russia disappeared tomorrow
If you travel southern Europe, you will see a lot of Asians in Greek orange groves living in accommodation that can only be described as third world. South of Rome you'll see a lot of Asians around Terracina as well as others. On the Adriatic side you'll see North Africans and in some places they are the only faces you will see. Spain is no different.
But going through the apple orchards of Kent last week, I could see the same set up you'll see in Greece, Italy and Spain. We want food but don't want to pay for it. We want services, but don't want to pay for them. Perhaps there is a common theme here.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Suspect the problem is that the economy hasn't really grown since 2008 or so, and a lot of our assumptions then (and now) depended on the economy growing. Our national borrowing and pension commitments and infrastructure spending would be a lot more affordable with more cash actually circulating.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Suspect the problem is that the economy hasn't really grown since 2008 or so, and a lot of our assumptions then (and now) depended on the economy growing. Our national borrowing and pension commitments and infrastructure spending would be a lot more affordable with more cash actually circulating.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
The engine was already spluttering before 2008. Early 2000s is the when the solid significant growth died out, which had enabled a lot more government spending and commitments to things like PFI repayments into the future. Since then we haven't had any real improvement in GDP / capita.
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Telegraph, Times and Tory BBC have published articles against Farage and doomsterism. Has Nige threatened a news tax?
I haven't read any of the articles, but there is far too much doomsterism about. We can be far too "everything's hunky-dory" and ignore problems; but we also can go too far the other way and say "everything's awful", when it really is not.
Take climate change / green energy. We can look at our current situation and say "We've got to go further and faster, we're doing really badly and we're doomed,", or "we've done well so far, but there's further to go. Let's have another push!" Both could accurately sum up the current situation, but I think the latter is much more useful.
Absolutely. And given our primary economic challenges come from having not enough babies, too much saving and too little spending, having a national narrative that we should buckle up for hard times is completely self defeating. It’s a one way ticket to Japan.
We have nothing to fear except fear itself. It’s my biggest disappointment with Starmer and Reeves. So little sunshine or optimism.
I just had a quick look at some Russophone media to see what they make of this Alaska bollocks...
5Kanal (Ukraine, now definitely NOT owned by Poroshenko) - It doesn't matter what Trump makes Z sign because the loonier elements of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (Azov, 3AB, Khartiya, etc.) will please their fucking selves and will keep fighting. I'm paraphrasing.
RTR (Russia) - VVP is too trusting and Trump will fuck him over. Some think-tank wanker likened the Alaska trip to the Gang nach Canossa. That's the type of historical reference you just don't get on GB News.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Suspect the problem is that the economy hasn't really grown since 2008 or so, and a lot of our assumptions then (and now) depended on the economy growing. Our national borrowing and pension commitments and infrastructure spending would be a lot more affordable with more cash actually circulating.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
The engine was already spluttering before 2008. Early 2000s is the when the solid significant growth died out, which had enabled a lot more government spending and commitments to things like PFI repayments into the future. Since then we haven't had any real improvement in GDP / capita.
I’d place it around 2003/4 for the European economy. That’s when thanks to a Chinese construction boom, the fallout from 9/11 including Iraq, and the US real estate bubble, the era of cheap global commodity prices came to a shuddering halt and prices started to climb. Since then we’ve had oil shocks, agricultural disasters and geopolitical crap along every couple of years, alongside the triple curses of the financial crisis, Ukraine and Covid.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
The opposite, Germany was only defeated in WW1 once the US entered the War in 1917.
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
You really don't know much history do you. Go and read about the naval race and then we can talk.
Well the naval race didn't defeat Germany either did it
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
If the Tories cant come up with an offer and strategy to beat Nigel Farage and his crack team of unknowns and nut jobs they deserve to rot in their ruin. Lee feckin Anderson is their chief whip. Mr twelve parties a year.
They had one, Boris as leader which kept Farage in his box from autumn 2019-2022, as soon as they removed him Farage was back again
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
If the Tories cant come up with an offer and strategy to beat Nigel Farage and his crack team of unknowns and nut jobs they deserve to rot in their ruin. Lee feckin Anderson is their chief whip. Mr twelve parties a year.
They had one, Boris as leader which kept Farage in his box from autumn 2019-2022, as soon as they removed him Farage was back again
Farage returned to UK politics in June 2024, I don't think that counts as 'as soon as they removed Boris'
I just had a quick look at some Russophone media to see what they make of this Alaska bollocks...
5Kanal (Ukraine, now definitely NOT owned by Poroshenko) - It doesn't matter what Trump makes Z sign because the loonier elements of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (Azov, 3AB, Khartiya, etc.) will please their fucking selves and will keep fighting. I'm paraphrasing.
RTR (Russia) - VVP is too trusting and Trump will fuck him over. Some think-tank wanker likened the Alaska trip to the Gang nach Canossa. That's the type of historical reference you just don't get on GB News.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Suspect the problem is that the economy hasn't really grown since 2008 or so, and a lot of our assumptions then (and now) depended on the economy growing. Our national borrowing and pension commitments and infrastructure spending would be a lot more affordable with more cash actually circulating.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
The engine was already spluttering before 2008. Early 2000s is the when the solid significant growth died out, which had enabled a lot more government spending and commitments to things like PFI repayments into the future. Since then we haven't had any real improvement in GDP / capita.
We need the economy to grow if we are going to break out of the doom cycle. This means planning reform, standing up to nimbyism, significant infrastructure expenditure, tying up the dead hand of the treasury and setting entrepreneurship free. Otherwise we will end up as a failed state.
I must respond to a scathing attack on my gardening knowledge and integrity. Dariel Francis claims I am wrong about “leaving spuds in the ground till February” (Letters, 6 August). I never said I would – and I reject this scandalous and deeply hurtful accusation. I said “digging ground for potatoes” in February. That means manuring and preparing the ground, before planting the potatoes in March or April. Save our potatoes – and save our allotments! Jeremy Corbyn MP
Go back to your allotments and prepare to help usher in a Reform government, comrades.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Suspect the problem is that the economy hasn't really grown since 2008 or so, and a lot of our assumptions then (and now) depended on the economy growing. Our national borrowing and pension commitments and infrastructure spending would be a lot more affordable with more cash actually circulating.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
The engine was already spluttering before 2008. Early 2000s is the when the solid significant growth died out, which had enabled a lot more government spending and commitments to things like PFI repayments into the future. Since then we haven't had any real improvement in GDP / capita.
Yes, once Gordon Brown was allowed to transfer massive resources from the productive private sector to the low productivity state sector the economy was always going to struggle.
Before 2007 it was increasingly kept running on debt then the financial crisis turned a difficult situation into a disastrous one.
And we still haven't learned the lessons of basic economics - low taxes, low spending, light regulation drive prosperity. They aren't the only factors that matter, but they are the ones we need to concentrate on.
And the current government is indeed concentrating on them, but unfortunately doing the exact opposite of what we need.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Actually I would suggest that one of the reasons public services are crumbling is that we expect them to do too much. This certainly applies to the NHS and also to social care. It applies to the Police and also applies in much of local services where those things once done by private individuals or groups as part of the community are now expected to be done by local government as a matter of course.
We ask and expect too much of the State and local government and even were we to significantly increase the monies available to them, this would still not allow them to do everything we ask of them.
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
If the Tories cant come up with an offer and strategy to beat Nigel Farage and his crack team of unknowns and nut jobs they deserve to rot in their ruin. Lee feckin Anderson is their chief whip. Mr twelve parties a year.
They had one, Boris as leader which kept Farage in his box from autumn 2019-2022, as soon as they removed him Farage was back again
Farage returned to UK politics in June 2024, I don't think that counts as 'as soon as they removed Boris'
Even by December 2022 Reform were polling 8-9% in many polls, paving the way for Farage's return to take Reform to 14% at the 2024 GE.
When Boris resigned in July 2022 though Reform were only polling 3 or 4% in most polls
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
The opposite, Germany was only defeated in WW1 once the US entered the War in 1917.
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
You really don't know much history do you. Go and read about the naval race and then we can talk.
Well the naval race didn't defeat Germany either did it
Ultimately, it did.
At Jutland, the prisoner assaulted the jailer. But the prisoner remained in prison.
The sane in WWII. The RN owned the surface. Which is how they enforced the blockade and eventually defeated the U Boats.
The campaign to stop Nigel Farage becoming next PM isn't going too well is it.
A long way to go, the Tories and Labour could have new leaders by the next GE and Reform really need to be polling 35-40% to be sure of winning most seats at the next GE or even a majority
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Suspect the problem is that the economy hasn't really grown since 2008 or so, and a lot of our assumptions then (and now) depended on the economy growing. Our national borrowing and pension commitments and infrastructure spending would be a lot more affordable with more cash actually circulating.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
The engine was already spluttering before 2008. Early 2000s is the when the solid significant growth died out, which had enabled a lot more government spending and commitments to things like PFI repayments into the future. Since then we haven't had any real improvement in GDP / capita.
Yes, once Gordon Brown was allowed to transfer massive resources from the productive private sector to the low productivity state sector the economy was always going to struggle.
Before 2007 it was increasingly kept running on debt then the financial crisis turned a difficult situation into a disastrous one.
And we still haven't learned the lessons of basic economics - low taxes, low spending, light regulation drive prosperity. They aren't the only factors that matter, but they are the ones we need to concentrate on.
And the current government is indeed concentrating on them, but unfortunately doing the exact opposite of what we need.
Private sector productivity grew massively from 1997 to 2008 - something like a cumulative 30%. It's been flat since then* - NHS productivity growth has actually been faster since the crash.
And you can parrot the low tax, low spending line as much as you want but there simply isn't any correlation with a country's tax burden or proportion of GDP that is government spending.
*There is evidence of a post-COVID spike, but it looks like it has returned to the long term flat trend.
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
If the Tories cant come up with an offer and strategy to beat Nigel Farage and his crack team of unknowns and nut jobs they deserve to rot in their ruin. Lee feckin Anderson is their chief whip. Mr twelve parties a year.
They had one, Boris as leader which kept Farage in his box from autumn 2019-2022, as soon as they removed him Farage was back again
Farage returned to UK politics in June 2024, I don't think that counts as 'as soon as they removed Boris'
Even by December 2022 Reform were polling 8-9% in many polls, paving the way for Farage's return to take Reform to 14% at the 2024 GE.
When Boris resigned in July 2022 though Reform were only polling 3 or 4% in most polls
That shows that a significant tranche of the voting population want to vote for a wanker. They voted for Johnson. When he was no longer available, they transferred to Farage. Both wankers.
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Suspect the problem is that the economy hasn't really grown since 2008 or so, and a lot of our assumptions then (and now) depended on the economy growing. Our national borrowing and pension commitments and infrastructure spending would be a lot more affordable with more cash actually circulating.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
The engine was already spluttering before 2008. Early 2000s is the when the solid significant growth died out, which had enabled a lot more government spending and commitments to things like PFI repayments into the future. Since then we haven't had any real improvement in GDP / capita.
Indeed.
Rising unemployment, falling home ownership, housing unaffordability, rising private debt, rising government borrowing, permanent trade deficit were already apparent around 2003/4.
Brown merely kept the housing, consumption and public spending bubble going for long enough to become prime minister.
If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
If the Tories cant come up with an offer and strategy to beat Nigel Farage and his crack team of unknowns and nut jobs they deserve to rot in their ruin. Lee feckin Anderson is their chief whip. Mr twelve parties a year.
They had one, Boris as leader which kept Farage in his box from autumn 2019-2022, as soon as they removed him Farage was back again
Farage returned to UK politics in June 2024, I don't think that counts as 'as soon as they removed Boris'
Even by December 2022 Reform were polling 8-9% in many polls, paving the way for Farage's return to take Reform to 14% at the 2024 GE.
When Boris resigned in July 2022 though Reform were only polling 3 or 4% in most polls
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
It's quite a turn around from his 10m are on benefits, no work ethic, end of times from only a couple of years ago.
I have a little theory about why some columnists and celebs become radicalised to the right or left - usually right - and others become radically deradicalised (Nelson is perhaps not quite in this space but Paul Mason seems to be, as are several erstwhile true blue Tories who’ve become centrist dads over the years - Matthew D’Ancona for example).
I think it’s about experiencing hate on social media. Occasionally you get piled on by people on your own side, usually for not being extreme enough. Quite a lonely experience I imagine. But sometimes you’ll get a groundswell of support from others, and if those are on the other side, you may find yourself drifting towards them. Human nature.
So while the normal engagement feedback loop is towards radicalisation, occasionally it can operate the other way.
No. Fraser Nelson was always seriously left wing and liberal
He's so full of shite but anyone who can travel this far in an inflatable dingy deserves British citizenship.
The defence of him on TwiX is quite funny. He knows what he posted and why he posted it. He got absolutely owned, and having a spare grand in his pocket doesn’t get him off.
Lowe seems more than your usual type of businessman cynical bastard. He seems willing to provoke civil unrest for his own political aims. Very trumpian/faragian/ticean.
Forget Lowe. *The Tories* are promoting the idea of civil unrest. The former party of law and order.
Citation required.
You seemed trapped between the Tories being dead as a political force and yet still responsible for all the nation's ills. Make your mind up...
1. The Tories broke the country. Labour aren't fixing it, but the Tories broke it 2. The remaining Tories note that Reform have replaced them. And are trying to our race bait them. 3. In no way are the Tories responsible for the protests. Read the posts by the people protesting. Its largely "fuck off, you broke the country"
The country is not 'broken'. Yes, we have problems, and yes, they may be bigger than they were ten years ago (*). But in general, things still work well. It's just that they could work better.
(*) But far better than they were forty years ago.
Tell the people out there that the country isn't broken. Jobs don't pay people's bills Public services receive record amounts of cash and deliver crisis levels of service The fabric binding society together is fraying
We can't fix things by snipping bits of policy at the edges, we need the Big Picture rebuild. The Tories failed to deliver that, Labour are failing to deliver that, people are looking at Reform who won't deliver that...
You know what? I cry B/S on that; at least, at the idea that there was a glorious age where things were better.
Ans yes, I will tell them that, on the whole, the country isn't broken. Because it isn't. Most of the time, most things work; perhaps even work well.
The interesting things is that residents in many other countries say similar things about their own countries; witness a rant I heard recently from a German about their 'broken' rail system. Perhaps the only places we don't see that from are those where the public are not free to speak about how 'broken' things are.
The great thing about all this is that there was always a golden age at some point in the past. It is the pot of gold waiting for you at the end of the rainbow.
Why are things broken so badly? Taxes at a record high and going up again soon Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime Public services crumbling due to a lack of cash Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling due to lack of investment Rampant inflation driven by energy prices (specifically gas) Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work
(Snip)
I agree with some of the stuff you wrote which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to the above, because you give some of the *causes*, but causal factors very much depend on your perspective. For instance, for the things mentioned below, take your choice from one or more of the following for each category (I don't agree with all of your categories; for instance I don't think private sector infrastructure is crumbling.)
Taxes at a record high and going up again soon --> because of inefficiencies in the public sector --> because services need the money --> because the 'rich' don't pay a fair share --> because of immigrants.
Sovereign debt at record levels in peacetime --> because of Covid. --> because of *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> because we are not willing to pay enough tax --> because the public sector is inefficient. --> because we are too generous with benefits.
Public services crumbling --> due to a lack of cash --> due to inefficiencies and bloating --> due to inaccurate targeting of funding --> due to the demands of immigration.
Private sector infrastructure (e.g. national grid) crumbling --> due to lack of investment --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement. --> due to the demands of immigration.
Rampant inflation --> driven by energy prices (specifically gas) --> driven by the after-effects of Covid --> due to *insert party's of choice*'s mismanagement.
Wages trapping millions in poverty no matter how long and hard they work --> because of too high taxes on working people --> because of the demands of modern life --> because of stupid definitions of 'poverty'
And many more for the above. Take your choice; one or more reasons from each category.
Actually I would suggest that one of the reasons public services are crumbling is that we expect them to do too much. This certainly applies to the NHS and also to social care. It applies to the Police and also applies in much of local services where those things once done by private individuals or groups as part of the community are now expected to be done by local government as a matter of course.
We ask and expect too much of the State and local government and even were we to significantly increase the monies available to them, this would still not allow them to do everything we ask of them.
I think I agree with that. We've been watching the BBC's 'Ambulance' series recently. My view was that the ambulance service spent most of their time going to emergencies; helping people who have had strokes, or an car accident. The impression the series gave is that instead they spend an awful lot of time dealing with social issues instead.
We get a lot of talk about housing problems on here, but mental health and wider social care are also big issues that cause massive strain on other services.
"open-source recommender algorithm found that the algorithm gives top priority to content that drives “conversation” even if that conversation is driven by misinformation or hate. This is exacerbated by the artificial amplification of posts from “premium” verified subscribers, which are paid accounts. "
That is literally every social media algorithm. It is why every YouTuber says please please please comment on my video, I don't care if you are slagging me off, just comment.
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
It's quite a turn around from his 10m are on benefits, no work ethic, end of times from only a couple of years ago.
I have a little theory about why some columnists and celebs become radicalised to the right or left - usually right - and others become radically deradicalised (Nelson is perhaps not quite in this space but Paul Mason seems to be, as are several erstwhile true blue Tories who’ve become centrist dads over the years - Matthew D’Ancona for example).
I think it’s about experiencing hate on social media. Occasionally you get piled on by people on your own side, usually for not being extreme enough. Quite a lonely experience I imagine. But sometimes you’ll get a groundswell of support from others, and if those are on the other side, you may find yourself drifting towards them. Human nature.
So while the normal engagement feedback loop is towards radicalisation, occasionally it can operate the other way.
No. Fraser Nelson was always seriously left wing and liberal
Lol. Seriously left wing? Fraser Nelson?
This is like a mad Trot calling Barry Gardiner a Tory.
It tells us where the author of the comment stands not where the subject of it does.
The campaign to stop Nigel Farage becoming next PM isn't going too well is it.
They've led the polling for 3.5 months. Ed Miliband led convincingly for 2.5 years and flopped to a big defeat. There's a serious case of immediacy bias in this parliament
'The author's best-selling biographies have a habit of changing the reputation of famous figures, such as establishing the Nazi intrigues around the Duke of Windsor, the former Edward VIII.
Although in the case of Entitled, he hasn't so much cemented Prince Andrew's reputation, as put it in concrete boots and thrown it in the river.'
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
How are they bringing £1 billion to Edinburgh over three days?
'The author's best-selling biographies have a habit of changing the reputation of famous figures, such as establishing the Nazi intrigues around the Duke of Windsor, the former Edward VIII.
Although in the case of Entitled, he hasn't so much cemented Prince Andrew's reputation, as put it in concrete boots and thrown it in the river.'
Indeed, Prince Andrew had an 87% negative, 5% positive poll rating even before this book. Even Meghan and Harry had 20% and 28% positive
British 1-2 at the women's T100 triathlon in London. It looks like there'll be five Brits in the top 10. Well done to Lucy Charles-Barclay, and commiserations to Kate Waugh, who lost the race in the last couple of kilometres.
There are only two Brits in the men's race, which is currently ongoing.
Comments
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
The next play is Jenrick or bust
https://x.com/frasernelson/status/1954059759365095667?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The police need to go after each and every one of them.
Make sure crime never pays.
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1954116962587414973?s=19
I must respond to a scathing attack on my gardening knowledge and integrity. Dariel Francis claims I am wrong about “leaving spuds in the ground till February” (Letters, 6 August). I never said I would – and I reject this scandalous and deeply hurtful accusation. I said “digging ground for potatoes” in February. That means manuring and preparing the ground, before planting the potatoes in March or April. Save our potatoes – and save our allotments!
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Rayner should be a massive favourite in this market.
However, both the Cons and Lab elect their leaders by the membership and both of those electorates have seen a massive churn in the last year or two. A leadership election now and especially in another year or two could prove quite surprising!
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/aug/08/yes-i-know-my-potatoes-dariel
I hope he writes lots more.
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine."
But its Guido, so probably BS.
He's not wrong though.
More than 100 people simultaneously unveiled placards with the same message "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" at the protest, organised by Defend Our Juries at Westminster's Parliament Square.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8de6rq37v5o
I bet the person running this twitter account encouraging people to break the law is nowhere near this.
On no no no. We can't have this. Need to redouble our efforts. Concentrate on shoplifting and phone-snatching and scour the news for crimes done by Afghans. Let's get to it!
Labour 2025 in action.
What he's refuting here is the false narrative of a Britain polluted beyond recognition by the mass import of foreign undesirables - ie the main plank of Reform propaganda.
And good for him. It needs pushback. You can't move online these days without wading through a bucket of that shit.
Yougov gives Burnham a +7% net rating, compared to -44% for Starmer, -37% for Corbyn, -35% for Badenoch, -31% for Farage and -6% for Davey
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52586-political-favourability-ratings-july-2025
https://x.com/metpoliceuk/status/1954152431505289673?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts and tax rises to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
Like when Brown brought Mandy back into his festering corpse of a government.
It's odd that they don't seem to clock the body language around them, or don't care, as long as they get the pic.
She will emerge when I rub the lamp.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
I think it’s about experiencing hate on social media. Occasionally you get piled on by people on your own side, usually for not being extreme enough. Quite a lonely experience I imagine. But sometimes you’ll get a groundswell of support from others, and if those are on the other side, you may find yourself drifting towards them. Human nature.
So while the normal engagement feedback loop is towards radicalisation, occasionally it can operate the other way.
- high cost of housing
I know many people who work in order to pay for a tiny square footage located so that they can work to pay for a tiny footage….
Chances of electoral victory, 2-4%
Jenrick facilitated the tax dodge of his billionaire mate, and got away with it. Thats what I mean by stealing the common off the goose.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/robert-jenrick-planning-row-the-key-questions-answered?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
Oh wait ...
Take climate change / green energy. We can look at our current situation and say "We've got to go further and faster, we're doing really badly and we're doomed,", or "we've done well so far, but there's further to go. Let's have another push!" Both could accurately sum up the current situation, but I think the latter is much more useful.
The US (and China...) should really consider that. Especially the former.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/09/spain-economy-strawberries-pickers-migrant-gdp
Edit to my "personality" checker - I'm looking for warm and *unaffected*.
Political leaders, these days, need to be able to be a little 'unplugged' in public. Talk freely, be themselves, riff around, not be rigid for fear of mis-speaking.
It's Starmer's biggest problem that he struggles with this.
But going through the apple orchards of Kent last week, I could see the same set up you'll see in Greece, Italy and Spain. We want food but don't want to pay for it. We want services, but don't want to pay for them. Perhaps there is a common theme here.
As for whether that engine can be restarted, and how to do it, that's the question.
We have nothing to fear except fear itself. It’s my biggest disappointment with Starmer and Reeves. So little sunshine or optimism.
5Kanal (Ukraine, now definitely NOT owned by Poroshenko) - It doesn't matter what Trump makes Z sign because the loonier elements of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (Azov, 3AB, Khartiya, etc.) will please their fucking selves and will keep fighting. I'm paraphrasing.
RTR (Russia) - VVP is too trusting and Trump will fuck him over. Some think-tank wanker likened the Alaska trip to the Gang nach Canossa. That's the type of historical reference you just don't get on GB News.
You're welcome.
Before 2007 it was increasingly kept running on debt then the financial crisis turned a difficult situation into a disastrous one.
And we still haven't learned the lessons of basic economics - low taxes, low spending, light regulation drive prosperity. They aren't the only factors that matter, but they are the ones we need to concentrate on.
And the current government is indeed concentrating on them, but unfortunately doing the exact opposite of what we need.
We ask and expect too much of the State and local government and even were we to significantly increase the monies available to them, this would still not allow them to do everything we ask of them.
Vance and the GOP appear to have a very curious definition of 'free speech'. It's almost as though they want full control of speech...
When Boris resigned in July 2022 though Reform were only polling 3 or 4% in most polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022
At Jutland, the prisoner assaulted the jailer. But the prisoner remained in prison.
The sane in WWII. The RN owned the surface. Which is how they enforced the blockade and eventually defeated the U Boats.
And you can parrot the low tax, low spending line as much as you want but there simply isn't any correlation with a country's tax burden or proportion of GDP that is government spending.
*There is evidence of a post-COVID spike, but it looks like it has returned to the long term flat trend.
Rising unemployment, falling home ownership, housing unaffordability, rising private debt, rising government borrowing, permanent trade deficit were already apparent around 2003/4.
Brown merely kept the housing, consumption and public spending bubble going for long enough to become prime minister.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-x-created-staggering-amplification-hate-during-2024-riots
We get a lot of talk about housing problems on here, but mental health and wider social care are also big issues that cause massive strain on other services.
That is literally every social media algorithm. It is why every YouTuber says please please please comment on my video, I don't care if you are slagging me off, just comment.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25377660.oasis-blast-edinburgh-council-chiefs-murrayfield-gig/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=090825
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ]
During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
Prince Andrew book seals his fate for any return
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24z1l090dqo
This is like a mad Trot calling Barry Gardiner a Tory.
It tells us where the author of the comment stands not where the subject of it does.
There's a serious case of immediacy bias in this parliament
Although in the case of Entitled, he hasn't so much cemented Prince Andrew's reputation, as put it in concrete boots and thrown it in the river.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14983099/Prince-Andrew-unpopular-royal-country-poll.html
There are only two Brits in the men's race, which is currently ongoing.