"Twitter makes user locations public. Users immediately discover many high-traffic MAGA accounts are astroturfing offshore accounts located in the Third World pretending to be American. Twitter turns off the feature within hours. "
‘Russian links to Reform need investigating’, he says. So why is his government still fighting case now in Grand Chamber of Strasbourg court refusing to have such an investigation into Russian interference ??
Ukrainian forces shot down a Russian Mi-8 helicopter with in Rostov Oblast with a deep strike drone, Ukraine's Special Operations Forces (SSO) reported on Nov. 22.
The operation marks the first time Ukraine has used a deep strike drone to down a Russian Mi-8.
The helicopter was shot down near Kuteynikovo in Russia's Rostov Oblast, the SSO reported on Telegram. The date and details of the operation were not disclosed.
It's better than anything I have seen from the UK government but it is not nearly enough. Western European Air forces (plus Poland and the Baltics) could give Ukraine total air superiority over all of Ukraine tomorrow. The war could only go one way from there. The time to act, and to make Trump an irrelevant bystander, is now.
Indeed.
Somebody I respect a lot has made the suggestion that we should speak to the Norwegians and then tell Trump he will will next year's Nobel Peace Prize if he continues to back Ukraine for the rest of his presidency.
You know, I don't give a flying F whether some corrupt bunch of self absorbed crooks want to give Trump whatever. No doubt they will have another insider bet on it. The man is the scum of the earth, he is a real and present danger to our safety and to US democracy. The idea that he can or should be bribed further simply turns my stomach. Enough of him.
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
Jeffrey Archer He held ministerial rank as Minister for the Arts. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2001 for perjury
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
Jeffrey Archer He held ministerial rank as Minister for the Arts. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2001 for perjury
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
Jeffrey Archer He held ministerial rank as Minister for the Arts. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2001 for perjury
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
The answer is, it varied according to the PM. According to British Political Facts, it was not a cabinet level post under Wilson so Stonehouse does not qualify.
The only other fairly senior politician to end up in the slammer AFAIK was Archer, and he was never in cabinet.
"Twitter makes user locations public. Users immediately discover many high-traffic MAGA accounts are astroturfing offshore accounts located in the Third World pretending to be American. Twitter turns off the feature within hours. "
Link please.
Apologies - I assumed this would be common knowledge by now.
It's better than anything I have seen from the UK government but it is not nearly enough. Western European Air forces (plus Poland and the Baltics) could give Ukraine total air superiority over all of Ukraine tomorrow. The war could only go one way from there. The time to act, and to make Trump an irrelevant bystander, is now.
Indeed.
Somebody I respect a lot has made the suggestion that we should speak to the Norwegians and then tell Trump he will will next year's Nobel Peace Prize if he continues to back Ukraine for the rest of his presidency.
Unfortunately, the Nobel Committee don't have the Kompromat on Trump.
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Yes, stop the pandering, I'd love to see that, but can we answer "yes" to the million dollar question that lies at the heart of all this - if the US walk away can European nations (politically, militarily, financially) provide Ukraine with enough support to keep fighting Russia until all or most of their territory is reclaimed?
Yes, of course we can.
Not without cutting welfare and pensions. Until European countries are willing to stop paying the lazy to be unemployed then there's no money to replace the US.
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
The answer is, it varied according to the PM. According to British Political Facts, it was not a cabinet level post under Wilson so Stonehouse does not qualify.
The only other fairly senior politician to end up in the slammer AFAIK was Archer, and he was never in cabinet.
"Twitter makes user locations public. Users immediately discover many high-traffic MAGA accounts are astroturfing offshore accounts located in the Third World pretending to be American. Twitter turns off the feature within hours. "
Link please.
Apologies - I assumed this would be common knowledge by now.
"Twitter makes user locations public. Users immediately discover many high-traffic MAGA accounts are astroturfing offshore accounts located in the Third World pretending to be American. Twitter turns off the feature within hours. "
Link please.
Apologies - I assumed this would be common knowledge by now.
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
Jeffrey Archer He held ministerial rank as Minister for the Arts. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2001 for perjury
Ministers below cabinet level MacShane, Elphicke and Elliot Morley. I dont think you will find any more cabinet ministers.
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
You wilfully misinterpret posts so often that I sometimes wonder whether you can even read.
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
Jeffrey Archer He held ministerial rank as Minister for the Arts. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2001 for perjury
Ministers below cabinet level MacShane, Elphicke and Elliot Morley. I dont think you will find any more cabinet ministers.
Mosley, of course, but his post was sub-cabinet as well (plus his time in office, if not in prison, was pre-war).
I say we take off, and nuke the whole site from orbit.
Only way to be sure.
Part of me does wish for an unexpected broadcast from No 10, coordinated with the French and others, saying that the RAF has commenced combat operations over Ukraine.
It's better than anything I have seen from the UK government but it is not nearly enough. Western European Air forces (plus Poland and the Baltics) could give Ukraine total air superiority over all of Ukraine tomorrow. The war could only go one way from there. The time to act, and to make Trump an irrelevant bystander, is now.
Indeed.
Somebody I respect a lot has made the suggestion that we should speak to the Norwegians and then tell Trump he will will next year's Nobel Peace Prize if he continues to back Ukraine for the rest of his presidency.
You know, I don't give a flying F whether some corrupt bunch of self absorbed crooks want to give Trump whatever. No doubt they will have another insider bet on it. The man is the scum of the earth, he is a real and present danger to our safety and to US democracy. The idea that he can or should be bribed further simply turns my stomach. Enough of him.
My wife's comment was, does this mean we cannot go to America until Trump is dead?
Latest Opinium poll shows 32% still supporting the Putin/Trump stooges .
Wtf is wrong with these people ?
A theoretical perceived threat from a foreign power does not impact these people in the same way as a 'real' perceived threat from the two main parties.
I don't agree with either perception per se but it is a belief held by a very large number of people.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
It's better than anything I have seen from the UK government but it is not nearly enough. Western European Air forces (plus Poland and the Baltics) could give Ukraine total air superiority over all of Ukraine tomorrow. The war could only go one way from there. The time to act, and to make Trump an irrelevant bystander, is now.
Indeed.
Somebody I respect a lot has made the suggestion that we should speak to the Norwegians and then tell Trump he will will next year's Nobel Peace Prize if he continues to back Ukraine for the rest of his presidency.
You know, I don't give a flying F whether some corrupt bunch of self absorbed crooks want to give Trump whatever. No doubt they will have another insider bet on it. The man is the scum of the earth, he is a real and present danger to our safety and to US democracy. The idea that he can or should be bribed further simply turns my stomach. Enough of him.
My wife's comment was, does this mean we cannot go to America until Trump is dead?
Not sure about even then myself.
I was meant to be in Las Vegas this week for the grand prix.
I realised that I would not do well in an American prison because of my previous comments about the Aberdeenshire hotelier.
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
Jeffrey Archer He held ministerial rank as Minister for the Arts. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2001 for perjury
Ministers below cabinet level MacShane, Elphicke and Elliot Morley. I dont think you will find any more cabinet ministers.
Mosley, of course, but his post was sub-cabinet as well (plus his time in office, if not in prison, was pre-war).
The question is complicated by whether we mean “attending Cabinet” or in receipt of one of the 22 (?) paid posts. They are often treated the same by the PM. Chief Secretary, for example, has been all over the place over the years, sometimes being the former, and sometimes the latter, but treatment within Cabinet being a separate matter. See also Chief Whips.
Ministers from the Lords, unpaid, and the changing importance of certain positions make it even more tricky.
"Twitter makes user locations public. Users immediately discover many high-traffic MAGA accounts are astroturfing offshore accounts located in the Third World pretending to be American. Twitter turns off the feature within hours. "
The New Yorker had the 'On the Internet no one knows you are a dog' cartoon well over twenty years ago.
When will British (and European and Canadian) politicians learn?
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the order of the day in the governments of Europe. Trump is just like another ordinary politician who can be negoitated with. Not only that, but he's a bit sensitive, so we must avoid any actual -you know- disagreeing with him. If we just push here, and look for a concession there, it will all be fine.
No.
It will not be fine.
It's a recipe for disaster.
One of Trump's greatest skills (and one is a fool if one does not recognize his abilities) is anchoring. Put a positiion down, and people will negotiate from there.
The only way to deal with someone so adept at anchoring is not to play at that game: we're not negotiating from there. Come back with something else, or we're not playing.
There is this massive fear that Trump will wave the tariff hammer, and wack those who get out of line. And you know what, that's partly true. But the more you stick together, the more that hammer is the US hammering its own consumers with ever higher prices. Trump is already unpopular. And concerns about the cost of living in the US already top voters concerns. So stand tall.
The only thing Trump respects is strength. And the more people stand up to him, the harder it is for him to bully others.
On Ukraine, and on other things, the only thing to say is "we're not responding to threats, treat us with the same respect you demand".
Agreed.
This is what Trump is actually trying to do, based on his own words:
"The more cooks in the kitchen." Right. When you strip away the sheer nonsense of this plan, and get beyond the panic now gripping Europe and D.C., you realize what is being demanded by people with no background in diplomacy and no relationships with Western partners is this: Settling a 10 year war, re-litigating 30+ years of security architecture in Europe, deciding the permanent composition NATO, deciding how the EU will use and spend other people's frozen money -- with no Congressional oversight, no NATO consensus, and no official Russian buy-in on any of the foregoing. All done and dusted before the tryptophan kicks in on Thursday. Easy-peasy. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1992242888084746422
It's just unserious bollocks; the whim of a semi senile aberration.
There is no negotiating with that.
It is long part time for Europe to say what it wants as a settlement of the war in Ukraine.
Only semi-senile?
Unless you mean Witkoff.
Need your assistance.
Was Postmaster-General a cabinet position in 1968/69?
I am trying to compile a list of post WWII cabinet ministers who have ended up in prison, so far I've got Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne, and potentially John Stonehouse.
Any others?
Jeffrey Archer He held ministerial rank as Minister for the Arts. He was sentenced to four years in prison in 2001 for perjury
Ministers below cabinet level MacShane, Elphicke and Elliot Morley. I dont think you will find any more cabinet ministers.
Mosley, of course, but his post was sub-cabinet as well (plus his time in office, if not in prison, was pre-war).
The question is complicated by whether we mean “attending Cabinet” or in receipt of one of the 22 (?) paid posts. They are often treated the same by the PM. Chief Secretary, for example, has been all over the place over the years, sometimes being the former, and sometimes the latter, but treatment within Cabinet being a separate matter. See also Chief Whips.
Ministers from the Lords, unpaid, and the changing importance of certain positions make it even more tricky.
From that point of view Postmaster General would qualify, as it's named along with Lord Privy Seal and Lord President of the Council in Schedule II of the Ministers of the Crown Act.
But by 1969 it had rather faded in importance, although Stonehouse did bring in first and second class postage.
I say we take off, and nuke the whole site from orbit.
Only way to be sure.
Part of me does wish for an unexpected broadcast from No 10, coordinated with the French and others, saying that the RAF has commenced combat operations over Ukraine.
Leaves Trump stranded. What's he going to do - impose sanctions on us and release them on Russia?
Actually, yes, that's likely exactly what he'd do.
I say we take off, and nuke the whole site from orbit.
Only way to be sure.
Hey, Casino, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate badasses will protect you! Check it out. Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx. WHAP! Fry half a Parliamentary constituency with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. We got sonic, electronic ball-breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, leaflets with dodgy bar charts...
I say we take off, and nuke the whole site from orbit.
Only way to be sure.
Part of me does wish for an unexpected broadcast from No 10, coordinated with the French and others, saying that the RAF has commenced combat operations over Ukraine.
Leaves Trump stranded. What's he going to do - impose sanctions on us and release them on Russia?
Actually, yes, that's likely exactly what he'd do.
The annexation of Kaliningrad by European little green men, and the complete denial of any involvement from every European country, would be hilarious.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
It's better than anything I have seen from the UK government but it is not nearly enough. Western European Air forces (plus Poland and the Baltics) could give Ukraine total air superiority over all of Ukraine tomorrow. The war could only go one way from there. The time to act, and to make Trump an irrelevant bystander, is now.
Indeed.
Somebody I respect a lot has made the suggestion that we should speak to the Norwegians and then tell Trump he will will next year's Nobel Peace Prize if he continues to back Ukraine for the rest of his presidency.
You know, I don't give a flying F whether some corrupt bunch of self absorbed crooks want to give Trump whatever. No doubt they will have another insider bet on it. The man is the scum of the earth, he is a real and present danger to our safety and to US democracy. The idea that he can or should be bribed further simply turns my stomach. Enough of him.
My wife's comment was, does this mean we cannot go to America until Trump is dead?
Not sure about even then myself.
I was meant to be in Las Vegas this week for the grand prix.
I realised that I would not do well in an American prison because of my previous comments about the Aberdeenshire hotelier.
We'd have had a whip 'round to get you out. To paraphrase Sam Allardyce, "Trump likes a bung".
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
You wilfully misinterpret posts so often that I sometimes wonder whether you can even read.
I sometimes wonder the same myself. I have a low boredom threshold and reading the same posters day after day imploring us to understand what an abomination PM Starmer is when he will almost certainly be around for the next three years gives me that feeling you get when you scratch a blackboard
christo grozev says he saw an earlier version of near identical 28 point plan a few months ago and it included a new Russia-US alliance of "christians" against China.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
I do feel for world leaders like Starmer and Macron. It would be a hell of a thing to tell Trump to go **** himself, double down on European support for Ukraine, and commit to pushing back the Russian bear alone. It would break the transatlantic alliance for at least three years, and possibly forever, and cost squillions to even half replace the Yanks.
But we’re close to the point that they have to.
Well, it would only break the transatlantic alliance to the extent that Trump chose to break it.
Breaking it would be extremely expensive for US defence companies.
And if the Europeans were determined to support Ukraine, then given such support was almost certainly result in victory for Ukraine and for the fall of Putin, then Trump has to make a very difficult choice: total isolation (with all the downsides for US companies that currently sit astride the world), or pretend that he always backed Europe and Ukraine.
I think we are getting to the point when we should give Russia an ultimatum: either withdraw all their forces from Ukrainian soil, all of it, or the conventional armies of western Europe will engage in Ukraine's support.
I don't think its an if but rather a when.
Russia's default behaviour is authoritarian expansionist militarism - it will keep pushing until opposed.
Which is why I keep saying Donald Tusk needs to take a lead - he must know fully well what Russia is and that a conflict between Russia and Poland is likely inevitable.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
I do feel for world leaders like Starmer and Macron. It would be a hell of a thing to tell Trump to go **** himself, double down on European support for Ukraine, and commit to pushing back the Russian bear alone. It would break the transatlantic alliance for at least three years, and possibly forever, and cost squillions to even half replace the Yanks.
But we’re close to the point that they have to.
Well, it would only break the transatlantic alliance to the extent that Trump chose to break it.
Breaking it would be extremely expensive for US defence companies.
And if the Europeans were determined to support Ukraine, then given such support was almost certainly result in victory for Ukraine and for the fall of Putin, then Trump has to make a very difficult choice: total isolation (with all the downsides for US companies that currently sit astride the world), or pretend that he always backed Europe and Ukraine.
I think we are getting to the point when we should give Russia an ultimatum: either withdraw all their forces from Ukrainian soil, all of it, or the conventional armies of western Europe will engage in Ukraine's support.
I don't think its an if but rather a when.
Russia's default behaviour is authoritarian expansionist militarism - it will keep pushing until opposed.
Which is why I keep saying Donald Tusk needs to take a lead - he must know fully well what Russia is and that a conflict between Russia and Poland is likely inevitable.
Tusk can't take that lead unless he knows a nuclear power like the UK or France is entirely steadfast behind Poland. He will have looked at our response to the RAF being attacked last week by the Russians and will have concluded - correctly - that we are frit.
I do feel for world leaders like Starmer and Macron. It would be a hell of a thing to tell Trump to go **** himself, double down on European support for Ukraine, and commit to pushing back the Russian bear alone. It would break the transatlantic alliance for at least three years, and possibly forever, and cost squillions to even half replace the Yanks.
But we’re close to the point that they have to.
Well, it would only break the transatlantic alliance to the extent that Trump chose to break it.
Breaking it would be extremely expensive for US defence companies.
And if the Europeans were determined to support Ukraine, then given such support was almost certainly result in victory for Ukraine and for the fall of Putin, then Trump has to make a very difficult choice: total isolation (with all the downsides for US companies that currently sit astride the world), or pretend that he always backed Europe and Ukraine.
I think we are getting to the point when we should give Russia an ultimatum: either withdraw all their forces from Ukrainian soil, all of it, or the conventional armies of western Europe will engage in Ukraine's support.
I don't think its an if but rather a when.
Russia's default behaviour is authoritarian expansionist militarism - it will keep pushing until opposed.
Which is why I keep saying Donald Tusk needs to take a lead - he must know fully well what Russia is and that a conflict between Russia and Poland is likely inevitable.
Tusk can't take that lead unless he knows a nuclear power like the UK or France is entirely steadfast behind Poland. He will have looked at our response to the RAF being attacked last week by the Russians and will have - correctly - concluded that we are frit.
Indeed.
Though Poland's response to Russian drone incursions was even more feeble.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". S. Holmes.
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
You wilfully misinterpret posts so often that I sometimes wonder whether you can even read.
I sometimes wonder the same myself. I have a low boredom threshold and reading the same posters day after day imploring us to understand what an abomination PM Starmer is when he will almost certainly be around for the next three years gives me that feeling you get when you scratch a blackboard
You have to admire the blind optimism of the PB faithful. I am not sure they are quite aware of the utter hatred the voter has for Truss incompetence, Partygate, immigration and the absolute corruption of the Johnson era. Mind you for a lot less incompetence, fewer parties, declining net migration and some fairly modest financial indiscretions Labour seems to be in the same boat.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
As THIS IS A BETTING SITE, it’s readers might have been pleased to see a tip for Katie bloody Lam a few months ago at 100/1, as they can lay it off now at 12/1 on Betfair
Not the best tip in the world, it hasn’t won yet, but better than most of the others, so it will have to do. No one went skint taking a profit
This thread is must read. The conclusion is simultaneously eye- popping and utterly predictable. The ‘peace plan’ for Ukraine delivered by the White House seems to have been translated from Russian into English. In other words it’s the Kremlin plan that Trump seems to be passing off as American, and is telling Ukraine it must accept
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". S. Holmes.
OTOH Mr Holmes was dealing with an actual fact, a past event, a crime, that needed to be explained. If there was no crime, then there might be no truth, however improbable.
It is not logically essential that a future fact - namely, the ability of a Labour PM to cope - will actually eventuate, to be explained by the same logic.
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
You wilfully misinterpret posts so often that I sometimes wonder whether you can even read.
I sometimes wonder the same myself. I have a low boredom threshold and reading the same posters day after day imploring us to understand what an abomination PM Starmer is when he will almost certainly be around for the next three years gives me that feeling you get when you scratch a blackboard
You have to admire the blind optimism of the PB faithful. I am not sure they are quite aware of the utter hatred the voter has for Truss incompetence, Partygate, immigration and the absolute corruption of the Johnson era. Mind you for a lot less incompetence, fewer parties, declining net migration and some fairly modest financial indiscretions Labour seems to be in the same boat.
Are we reaching the point where the problem with FPTP is not that it unfairly distributes seats in the manner of 2024 but that it is inescapable that someone comes first.
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
You wilfully misinterpret posts so often that I sometimes wonder whether you can even read.
I sometimes wonder the same myself. I have a low boredom threshold and reading the same posters day after day imploring us to understand what an abomination PM Starmer is when he will almost certainly be around for the next three years gives me that feeling you get when you scratch a blackboard
Something I have never said and would never say, so what’s it got to do with me?
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
No way is he next Labour leader, who almost certainly takes over next year and will be a present or past cabinet member.
One to watch for the future perhaps, but more likely Hodges just frotting himself over a muscular soldier.
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
You wilfully misinterpret posts so often that I sometimes wonder whether you can even read.
I sometimes wonder the same myself. I have a low boredom threshold and reading the same posters day after day imploring us to understand what an abomination PM Starmer is when he will almost certainly be around for the next three years gives me that feeling you get when you scratch a blackboard
You have to admire the blind optimism of the PB faithful. I am not sure they are quite aware of the utter hatred the voter has for Truss incompetence, Partygate, immigration and the absolute corruption of the Johnson era. Mind you for a lot less incompetence, fewer parties, declining net migration and some fairly modest financial indiscretions Labour seems to be in the same boat.
That hatred for Truss etc was a thing. It's the past. The blind optimism lies with those who think the polls showing Labour winning barely more seats than the Tories will turn around when the votews remember how shite the Torie were.
No, the voters are remembeing how wretched this Starmer government is now. And that is before it serves up another round of shit sandwiches in the Budget.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
This thread is must read. The conclusion is simultaneously eye- popping and utterly predictable. The ‘peace plan’ for Ukraine delivered by the White House seems to have been translated from Russian into English. In other words it’s the Kremlin plan that Trump seems to be passing off as American, and is telling Ukraine it must accept
Taking it back to narrow politics, there is an opportunity for the Tories here isn’t there? Attack Labour over the budget and Reform over Russia. Wrap themselves in the flag (possibly the Ukrainian flag) and channel Churchill.
That'll excite the electorate. Wrap themselves in the flag. A surefire winner if ever I heard one!
You wilfully misinterpret posts so often that I sometimes wonder whether you can even read.
I sometimes wonder the same myself. I have a low boredom threshold and reading the same posters day after day imploring us to understand what an abomination PM Starmer is when he will almost certainly be around for the next three years gives me that feeling you get when you scratch a blackboard
You have to admire the blind optimism of the PB faithful. I am not sure they are quite aware of the utter hatred the voter has for Truss incompetence, Partygate, immigration and the absolute corruption of the Johnson era. Mind you for a lot less incompetence, fewer parties, declining net migration and some fairly modest financial indiscretions Labour seems to be in the same boat.
That hatred for Truss etc was a thing. It's the past. The blind optimism lies with those who think the polls showing Labour winning barely more seats than the Tories will turn around when the votews remember how shite the Torie were.
No, the voters are remembeing how wretched this Starmer government is now. And that is before it serves up another round of shit sandwiches in the Budget.
Labour and the Tories can both collapse in a heap of incompetence as far as I am concerned. Nonetheless it would be a shame that both parties are replaced by a pack of Trump adjacent Putin fanbois.
Rather than just hoping and praying that a Reform lite party called the Conservatives win the next election and do lots of shite Reformy things, you'd be better off fighting for some sensible one nation Tory policies and personnel.
As for Labour, a party with no ideology and no plans, they deserve to wither and die, just like the Tories.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Have I gatecrashed humourless deluded Tory night on PB? Sorry about that. So as not to cause unnecessary offence I have you and @biggles in mind.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
No way is he next Labour leader, who almost certainly takes over next year and will be a present or past cabinet member.
One to watch for the future perhaps, but more likely Hodges just frotting himself over a muscular soldier.
Preferably with broad shoulders, a deep voice and good hair. Like Dan Jarvis.
Trump officials’ meeting with Russian in Miami spurs questions about latest Ukraine proposal
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-officials-meeting-with-russian-miami-spurs-questions-about-latest-ukraine-2025-11-22/ Nov 22 (Reuters) - U.S. officials and lawmakers are increasingly concerned about a meeting last month in which representatives of the Trump administration met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy who is under U.S. sanctions, to draft a plan to end the war in Ukraine, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. The meeting took place in Miami at the end of October and included special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who leads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), one of Russia's largest sovereign wealth funds...
So the current dilemma for Europe and Ukraine was cooked up a month ago. And sprung on us now with a deadline of Thursday.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
No way is he next Labour leader, who almost certainly takes over next year and will be a present or past cabinet member.
One to watch for the future perhaps, but more likely Hodges just frotting himself over a muscular soldier.
Preferably with broad shoulders, a deep voice and good hair. Like Dan Jarvis.
We seem to have forgotten that Paddy Ashdown was also in the SBS. Admittedly i) he was in another party, and ii) he is dead, but apart from that he would be an immense improvement.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
No way is he next Labour leader, who almost certainly takes over next year and will be a present or past cabinet member.
One to watch for the future perhaps, but more likely Hodges just frotting himself over a muscular soldier.
Preferably with broad shoulders, a deep voice and good hair. Like Dan Jarvis.
If we are looking at ex-military is Eric Joyce still available?
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
As THIS IS A BETTING SITE, it’s readers might have been pleased to see a tip for Katie bloody Lam a few months ago at 100/1, as they can lay it off now at 12/1 on Betfair
Not the best tip in the world, it hasn’t won yet, but better than most of the others, so it will have to do. No one went skint taking a profit
But that was your tip not Dan Hodges. World of difference.
Yes, the Polanski Greens have now taken the place of Your Party as the natural home for the Corbynite Starmer hating old leftie.
Though Your Party could still win a few seats in Muslim heavy areas like Birmingham, Dewsbury, Leicester and Blackburn the Independent Alliance won seats in 2024 plus maybe in Bradford and Slough and Luton and Newham and Tower Hamlets
question.
GPEW 170k members. 100k of them new to the party. Are there really that many Corbynites?
And tbh, I’d say we have loads of small c conservatives looking for a home too. Water company and rail nationalisation, looking after the environment. Party of small sustainable business. Keeping the NHS. It’s their kind of thing.
Meetings are getting quite interesting.
It's certainly the party for misogynists and those who don't respect the law.
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Have I gatecrashed humourless deluded Tory night on PB? Sorry about that. So as not to cause unnecessary offence I have you and @biggles in mind.
Eh? My only substantive post this evening was to ponder in a geeky manner over what someone meant by “Cabinet Minister”.
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
I would argue the professionalisation of the army after (and to some extent because of) Wellington is the reason why.
He ended up with an army career, but largely because it was the sort of thing one did in his social position. He also ended up being brilliant, but that’s a separate point.
Once you could no longer buy commissions, a lot of his sort became other things instead, including professional politicians.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Have I gatecrashed humourless deluded Tory night on PB? Sorry about that. So as not to cause unnecessary offence I have you and @biggles in mind.
Eh? My only substantive post this evening was to ponder in a geeky manner over what someone meant by “Cabinet Minister”.
I thought you rather dismissive of @Roger . Just my opinion which I would otherwise have kept to myself had you not responded to my rather curt post.
Anyway Altered Images from 1981 are on BBC4, so please excuse me. I wouldn't want to be disrespectful to Clare Grogan and not give her my full attention.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
How exactly does that constitute "the perfect cv" to be PM?"
It's genuinely hard to recognise what would make for good PM material - even experienced and decent ministers might not do so well once thrust into the driver's seat - but that does seem remarkably thin. He's got a square jaw and a military background (and barely a year in parliament)?
I know lack of political experience is sometimes touted as a plus, but I'm a little old fashioned in thinking, all else being equal, you'd rather have someone at the top with some experience of wrangling with their fellow MPs and legislative conditioning, since despite what the increasingly disappearing Corbynistas might tell us, as PM you need to be able to have some demonstrable political skills.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Have I gatecrashed humourless deluded Tory night on PB? Sorry about that. So as not to cause unnecessary offence I have you and @biggles in mind.
Eh? My only substantive post this evening was to ponder in a geeky manner over what someone meant by “Cabinet Minister”.
I thought you rather dismissive of @Roger . Just my opinion which I would otherwise have kept to myself had you not responded to my rather curt post.
Anyway Altered Images from 1981 are on BBC4, so please excuse me. I wouldn't want to be disrespectful to Clare Grogan and not give her my full attention.
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
I would argue the professionalisation of the army after (and to some extent because of) Wellington is the reason why.
He ended up with an army career, but largely because it was the sort of thing one did in his social position. He also ended up being brilliant, but that’s a separate point.
Once you could no longer buy commissions, a lot of his sort became other things instead, including professional politicians.
It isn't unusual in other countries to have presidents from a military background, but it really isn't here. While I think much of our military is reactionary and politically dubious they do have the self-knowledge to know that and like the Royals steer clear of party politics.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
As THIS IS A BETTING SITE, it’s readers might have been pleased to see a tip for Katie bloody Lam a few months ago at 100/1, as they can lay it off now at 12/1 on Betfair
Not the best tip in the world, it hasn’t won yet, but better than most of the others, so it will have to do. No one went skint taking a profit
You might be thinking in terms of "unlikely but not THAT unlikely" trading bets. And Lam was a good spot for that. Really.
But there are those on the right who are sincere in their Lam for Leader fandom, which is currently insane.
And it doesn't apply to Cairns, now he is being drooled over by Dan Hodges. The off-Broadway phase hasn't happened, and that's the profitable one.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Have I gatecrashed humourless deluded Tory night on PB? Sorry about that. So as not to cause unnecessary offence I have you and @biggles in mind.
Eh? My only substantive post this evening was to ponder in a geeky manner over what someone meant by “Cabinet Minister”.
I thought you rather dismissive of @Roger . Just my opinion which I would otherwise have kept to myself had you not responded to my rather curt post.
Anyway Altered Images from 1981 are on BBC4, so please excuse me. I wouldn't want to be disrespectful to Clare Grogan and not give her my full attention.
Oh, well yes but he’s a ####.
I thought that word was banned!
Not that @Roger needs me to ride shotgun on his behalf, but from my side of the fence he is very readable and a great deal more interesting than those who attempt to cancel him.
My Labour contacts have been promoting Al Carns for a few months now.
On one hand, the idea of a backbencher taking on the leadership is a farce, on the other hand there is Lucy Powell and an endless list of utter non-entities.
Comments
Ukrainian forces shot down a Russian Mi-8 helicopter with in Rostov Oblast with a deep strike drone, Ukraine's Special Operations Forces (SSO) reported on Nov. 22.
The operation marks the first time Ukraine has used a deep strike drone to down a Russian Mi-8.
The helicopter was shot down near Kuteynikovo in Russia's Rostov Oblast, the SSO reported on Telegram. The date and details of the operation were not disclosed.
"We are changing the rules of the game: now we are hunting!" the SSO wrote.
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-downs-russian-mi-8-helicopter-with-deep-strike-drone-for-first-time-military-claims/
Some Labour MPs are now starting to think their Action Man could be their only hope > Mail Plus >
https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1992316548652933547?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The man is the scum of the earth, he is a real and present danger to our safety and to US democracy. The idea that he can or should be bribed further simply turns my stomach. Enough of him.
The only other fairly senior politician to end up in the slammer AFAIK was Archer, and he was never in cabinet.
https://x.com/johnbourscheid/status/1992246055887650841
Only way to be sure.
But I’ve not seen any news coverage of it going live/being turned off yet.
Not sure about even then myself.
I don't agree with either perception per se but it is a belief held by a very large number of people.
I realised that I would not do well in an American prison because of my previous comments about the Aberdeenshire hotelier.
Ministers from the Lords, unpaid, and the changing importance of certain positions make it even more tricky.
Prescient. Very...
But by 1969 it had rather faded in importance, although Stonehouse did bring in first and second class postage.
Actually, yes, that's likely exactly what he'd do.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
That's been dropped so far.
https://x.com/christogrozev/status/1992269286866379117
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
As one admirer claimed: ‘Carns is the real deal. He comes with a proper action grip.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15316263/Inside-Labour-plot-destroy-Starmer-talks-hears-DAN-HODGES-unmasks-No-10s-attempts-stop-bid-Action-Man-desperate-oust-PM.html (£££ possibly)
Russia's default behaviour is authoritarian expansionist militarism - it will keep pushing until opposed.
Which is why I keep saying Donald Tusk needs to take a lead - he must know fully well what Russia is and that a conflict between Russia and Poland is likely inevitable.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
58m
Interesting poll of Labour members coming up from
@LabourList
tonight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Joyce
Though Poland's response to Russian drone incursions was even more feeble.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". S. Holmes.
Not the best tip in the world, it hasn’t won yet, but better than most of the others, so it will have to do. No one went skint taking a profit
And I think I look grey and old for 43. I would have taken him for early fifties.
This thread is must read. The conclusion is simultaneously eye- popping and utterly predictable. The ‘peace plan’ for Ukraine delivered by the White House seems to have been translated from Russian into English. In other words it’s the Kremlin plan that Trump seems to be passing off as American, and is telling Ukraine it must accept
https://x.com/jonsopel/status/1992293004476809516?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
It is not logically essential that a future fact - namely, the ability of a Labour PM to cope - will actually eventuate, to be explained by the same logic.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
One to watch for the future perhaps, but more likely Hodges just frotting himself over a muscular soldier.
No, the voters are remembeing how wretched this Starmer government is now. And that is before it serves up another round of shit sandwiches in the Budget.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Not so much "Mr Angry from Purley" as Mr Scared of immigrants from a 100% white village in Herefordshire.
Rather than just hoping and praying that a Reform lite party called the Conservatives win the next election and do lots of shite Reformy things, you'd be better off fighting for some sensible one nation Tory policies and personnel.
As for Labour, a party with no ideology and no plans, they deserve to wither and die, just like the Tories.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-officials-meeting-with-russian-miami-spurs-questions-about-latest-ukraine-2025-11-22/
Nov 22 (Reuters) - U.S. officials and lawmakers are increasingly concerned about a meeting last month in which representatives of the Trump administration met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy who is under U.S. sanctions, to draft a plan to end the war in Ukraine, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
The meeting took place in Miami at the end of October and included special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who leads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), one of Russia's largest sovereign wealth funds...
So the current dilemma for Europe and Ukraine was cooked up a month ago.
And sprung on us now with a deadline of Thursday.
Contemptible.
Probably a side deal in it for Kushner.
I think it's going to be a cracker.
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
The old “France surrenders” jokes need to die. They are stupid. Super cringe.
Think about it:
America has spent the last year desperately trying to surrender in a war it isn’t even fighting.
https://x.com/RonActual/status/1992204245064679601
He ended up with an army career, but largely because it was the sort of thing one did in his social position. He also ended up being brilliant, but that’s a separate point.
Once you could no longer buy commissions, a lot of his sort became other things instead, including professional politicians.
Anyway Altered Images from 1981 are on BBC4, so please excuse me. I wouldn't want to be disrespectful to Clare Grogan and not give her my full attention.
He'll push through whatever gives him the biggest payoff.
he’s never even looked at jd like that
https://x.com/RandomTheGuy_/status/1992183184860315710
*Obvs not, but what is going on here ?
I know lack of political experience is sometimes touted as a plus, but I'm a little old fashioned in thinking, all else being equal, you'd rather have someone at the top with some experience of wrangling with their fellow MPs and legislative conditioning, since despite what the increasingly disappearing Corbynistas might tell us, as PM you need to be able to have some demonstrable political skills.
Meanwhile Farage prepares for office.
Starmer managed to appeal to the latter for a little bit, but he's played the state visit card now and that's over and done with.
But there are those on the right who are sincere in their Lam for Leader fandom, which is currently insane.
And it doesn't apply to Cairns, now he is being drooled over by Dan Hodges. The off-Broadway phase hasn't happened, and that's the profitable one.
Reuters
Not that @Roger needs me to ride shotgun on his behalf, but from my side of the fence he is very readable and a great deal more interesting than those who attempt to cancel him.
His historic actions pursuing his libido will be his downfall.
On one hand, the idea of a backbencher taking on the leadership is a farce, on the other hand there is Lucy Powell and an endless list of utter non-entities.
I am furious that he's trying to bring about Ukraine's downfall.
I am livid that the American voters gave him the opportunity knowing full well what he is like.