Skip to content

The Tory scorpion and Kemi the frog – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,829
edited 6:36AM in General
The Tory scorpion and Kemi the frog – politicalbetting.com

We should all be familiar with the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog, looking at the above chart above it is the Tory nature to dispose of their leaders pretty quickly this millennium unless you’re an exceptional talent like David Cameron.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • April this year? Not April last year?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,277
    Good morning, everyone.

    Fresh Thai and Cambodian border clashes, alas:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g5e1p585qt

    From my limited knowledge it seems the long history means multiple disputes over different eras.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,169

    April this year? Not April last year?

    Well done for spotting my, ahem, deliberate mistake.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058
    edited 6:55AM
    The surge in Reform has obviously hit the Tories badly. The split in the opposition in this way has also made Labour look less bad than it would have otherwise.

    An awful lot for the Tories depends on how Reform does in May. At the moment the shine is coming off them and Farage but they remain the strongest single party. Will that still be the case in May? Kemi's future may well depend on the answer.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,936
    edited 7:01AM
    It's all about the RefCon and LLG blocks, isn't it? Whichever one is more efficiently distributed come 2029 wins, and the leading party in that block wins most of all.

    In which case it really comes down to which of the populist parties, Reform or Green, folds more. And whilst I would happily see both Nigel and Zak disappear into the Vortex from the Adventure Game, Farage is probably more experienced and better at just about avoiding fatal trouble.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,121
    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444
    There's no reason why I would, but I don't know what the Tories are offering in Wales. I know what Labour has offered - 20mph speed limits etc. I believe Plaid are broadly the same, but in a nationalist way. Reform are the opposite, wanting to revive heavy industry. What are the Tories for there? All I know is that they recently deposed their leader for being too right wing (is my reading). Why do they want power there?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,121
    This is the first time I have heard of the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Wikipedia dates it to 1930s Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,169

    This is the first time I have heard of the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Wikipedia dates it to 1930s Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

    Not a fan of Star Trek: Voyager then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,169
    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,086
    Three of the 8 leaders - May, Sunak and Howard were unopposed. The others had to present themselves to the Party faithful. Is the issue of poor choice actually the selection process which is more of a beauty parade than a serious evaluation of political skill?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,936

    There's no reason why I would, but I don't know what the Tories are offering in Wales. I know what Labour has offered - 20mph speed limits etc. I believe Plaid are broadly the same, but in a nationalist way. Reform are the opposite, wanting to revive heavy industry. What are the Tories for there? All I know is that they recently deposed their leader for being too right wing (is my reading). Why do they want power there?

    That highlights the underlying problem for the Conservatives, perhaps going back a couple of decades. What do they want and who are they for? If you want right wing populism, Reform are going to do it better. If you want paternalism with half an eye on the pennies, the Conservatives have little appeal now. Kemi, like several of her predecessors, is stuck in a no-mans-land between the two.

    Labour have got a massive problem. Centrist dads in constituencies that don't have a Waitrose or a Gail's isn't a winning coalition. But it's better than the one the Conservatives have.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 809

    This is the first time I have heard of the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Wikipedia dates it to 1930s Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

    It is mentioned in the film "The Crying Game" (1992).
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 12,021

    Good morning, everyone.

    Fresh Thai and Cambodian border clashes, alas:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g5e1p585qt

    From my limited knowledge it seems the long history means multiple disputes over different eras.

    I thought Trump claimed that was a bigly success for his peace endeavours. Does he get to count it twice?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
  • dunhamdunham Posts: 62
    DavidL said:

    The surge in Reform has obviously hit the Tories badly. The split in the opposition in this way has also made Labour look less bad than it would have otherwise.

    An awful lot for the Tories depends on how Reform does in May. At the moment the shine is coming off them and Farage but they remain the strongest single party. Will that still be the case in May? Kemi's future may well depend on the answer.

    I agree, but the surge in Reform is an almost unprecedented situation, and doesn’t necessarily warrant the Tories ditching their leader next year, at least 2 years before the next likely GE, even if they perform poorly in the various elections in May 2026.
    Given the dearth of remaining talent in the parliamentary Tory party, it is difficult to see who might do better. Cleverly seems wishy washy. Jenrick is passionate, and would compete effectively against Farage, although his wife might be a handicap in this regard. Who else might be a front runner in any leadership contest?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,121

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    The next header will be the fable of turkeys not voting for Christmas. Labour's majority is 150-ish even after defections so the Opposition cannot vote down the government so Labour will continue until the last moment unless it recovers its poll lead or elects a billionaire Prime Minister unaware that his doomed MPs have mortgages to pay.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444

    There's no reason why I would, but I don't know what the Tories are offering in Wales. I know what Labour has offered - 20mph speed limits etc. I believe Plaid are broadly the same, but in a nationalist way. Reform are the opposite, wanting to revive heavy industry. What are the Tories for there? All I know is that they recently deposed their leader for being too right wing (is my reading). Why do they want power there?

    That highlights the underlying problem for the Conservatives, perhaps going back a couple of decades. What do they want and who are they for? If you want right wing populism, Reform are going to do it better. If you want paternalism with half an eye on the pennies, the Conservatives have little appeal now. Kemi, like several of her predecessors, is stuck in a no-mans-land between the two.

    Labour have got a massive problem. Centrist dads in constituencies that don't have a Waitrose or a Gail's isn't a winning coalition. But it's better than the one the Conservatives have.
    It may or may not relate to the issue of where the Tories sit on the political spectrum, but it's more that I would expect wherever that is, to at least know one Welsh Tory policy, just from reading PB.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,103

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    If Starmer wants to stay, he will stay. The Labour Party constitution was written to protect the position of the leader. And Labour are historically rubbish at giving leaders the chop.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,227

    There's no reason why I would, but I don't know what the Tories are offering in Wales. I know what Labour has offered - 20mph speed limits etc. I believe Plaid are broadly the same, but in a nationalist way. Reform are the opposite, wanting to revive heavy industry. What are the Tories for there? All I know is that they recently deposed their leader for being too right wing (is my reading). Why do they want power there?

    That highlights the underlying problem for the Conservatives, perhaps going back a couple of decades. What do they want and who are they for? If you want right wing populism, Reform are going to do it better. If you want paternalism with half an eye on the pennies, the Conservatives have little appeal now. Kemi, like several of her predecessors, is stuck in a no-mans-land between the two.

    Labour have got a massive problem. Centrist dads in constituencies that don't have a Waitrose or a Gail's isn't a winning coalition. But it's better than the one the Conservatives have.
    It may or may not relate to the issue of where the Tories sit on the political spectrum, but it's more that I would expect wherever that is, to at least know one Welsh Tory policy, just from reading PB.
    Shame on you for not having read their "bold plan for Wales". (2024). Such as it is...

    ❱ Cutting tax further for workers
    ❱ £1 billion to electrify the North Wales Main Line
    ❱ Bringing nuclear power back to North Wales
    ❱ Keeping the Severn crossings toll free and giving communities consent over 20mph speed limits
    ❱ A modern National Service scheme
    ❱ £1 billion in continued levelling-up funding for Welsh communities
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,936

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    The next header will be the fable of turkeys not voting for Christmas. Labour's majority is 150-ish even after defections so the Opposition cannot vote down the government so Labour will continue until the last moment unless it recovers its poll lead or elects a billionaire Prime Minister unaware that his doomed MPs have mortgages to pay.
    But it's in the hands of the PM too. Rishi Sunak went deliberately early last time. His financial considerations were obviously very different to those of rank and file Tory MPs. What if PM Wes tries to 'get a grip' and the PLP don't play ball? He could threaten to go to the Palace, and could well have his own career path lined up.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,121
    edited 7:43AM

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    The next header will be the fable of turkeys not voting for Christmas. Labour's majority is 150-ish even after defections so the Opposition cannot vote down the government so Labour will continue until the last moment unless it recovers its poll lead or elects a billionaire Prime Minister unaware that his doomed MPs have mortgages to pay.
    But it's in the hands of the PM too. Rishi Sunak went deliberately early last time. His financial considerations were obviously very different to those of rank and file Tory MPs. What if PM Wes tries to 'get a grip' and the PLP don't play ball? He could threaten to go to the Palace, and could well have his own career path lined up.
    If PM Wes has a new job lined up – although what would be a promotion? Archbishop of Canterbury? England football manager? The Rest is Politics is better paid according to Rory, who described getting football championship money, and AC is getting on in years – then he could simply resign and go and do it without calling an election and ushering in a Reform and/or Conservative government.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,004

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    I suppose the moderately interesting question is where would the Greens be in the polling if they’d chosen the ‘safe’ option for leader (I remember the alternative was a duo but not their names without checking, which says it all).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    If Starmer wants to stay, he will stay. The Labour Party constitution was written to protect the position of the leader. And Labour are historically rubbish at giving leaders the chop.
    If their polling comes to rest in the mid-teens, it is curtains for SKS, some way, somehow. The cabinet will refuse to serve, the PLP will refuse to vote.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,227
    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    The next header will be the fable of turkeys not voting for Christmas. Labour's majority is 150-ish even after defections so the Opposition cannot vote down the government so Labour will continue until the last moment unless it recovers its poll lead or elects a billionaire Prime Minister unaware that his doomed MPs have mortgages to pay.
    But it's in the hands of the PM too. Rishi Sunak went deliberately early last time. His financial considerations were obviously very different to those of rank and file Tory MPs. What if PM Wes tries to 'get a grip' and the PLP don't play ball? He could threaten to go to the Palace, and could well have his own career path lined up.
    If PM Wes has a new job lined up – although what would be a promotion? Archbishop of Canterbury? England football manager? The Rest is Politics is better paid according to Rory, who described getting football championship money, and AC is getting on in years – then he could simply resign and go and do it without calling an election and ushering in a Reform and/or Conservative government.
    My point is not that he would precipitate a GE because he had career plans, but that his calculus in doing so would be totally different to that of the rank and file Labour MP, so 'turkeys voting for Christmas' is not a hard and fast rule. In the Tories case, the turkeys did not get a choice.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,249

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,952
    "both Sir Keir Starmer, Labour, and Rachel Reeves"

    Oh dear.

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 12,021

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    The next header will be the fable of turkeys not voting for Christmas. Labour's majority is 150-ish even after defections so the Opposition cannot vote down the government so Labour will continue until the last moment unless it recovers its poll lead or elects a billionaire Prime Minister unaware that his doomed MPs have mortgages to pay.
    But it's in the hands of the PM too. Rishi Sunak went deliberately early last time. His financial considerations were obviously very different to those of rank and file Tory MPs. What if PM Wes tries to 'get a grip' and the PLP don't play ball? He could threaten to go to the Palace, and could well have his own career path lined up.
    If PM Wes has a new job lined up – although what would be a promotion? Archbishop of Canterbury? England football manager? The Rest is Politics is better paid according to Rory, who described getting football championship money, and AC is getting on in years – then he could simply resign and go and do it without calling an election and ushering in a Reform and/or Conservative government.
    My point is not that he would precipitate a GE because he had career plans, but that his calculus in doing so would be totally different to that of the rank and file Labour MP, so 'turkeys voting for Christmas' is not a hard and fast rule. In the Tories case, the turkeys did not get a choice.
    I don’t think the PM can dissolve Parliament - only Parliament can do that. If Streeting were to resign without the support of the PLP for an election the palace would ask someone else (I assume the deputy leader?) to form a government
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058

    This is the first time I have heard of the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Wikipedia dates it to 1930s Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

    Not a fan of Star Trek: Voyager then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)
    I always assumed it was Aesop. I am genuinely surprised to learn it is newer.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,121

    "both Sir Keir Starmer, Labour, and Rachel Reeves"

    Oh dear.

    This is what happens when TSE disses autocorrect.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,952
    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,936
    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    The party as was, or left wing carpetbaggers?

    As for share in the polls, remember the lesson of the Alliance. Vote share is vanity, seats are sanity and swapping first place in Waveney Valley for improved second places in lots of places isn't a win.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,277

    "both Sir Keir Starmer, Labour, and Rachel Reeves"

    Oh dear.

    This is what happens when TSE disses autocorrect.
    Kermit's Revenge.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,249

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    The party as was, or left wing carpetbaggers?

    As for share in the polls, remember the lesson of the Alliance. Vote share is vanity, seats are sanity and swapping first place in Waveney Valley for improved second places in lots of places isn't a win.
    Polanski won 84% of the vote in the leadership election. That is more than a few "carpetbaggers".

    I get that you don't like him, but he doesn't look to be losing seats.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058
    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,498

    There's no reason why I would, but I don't know what the Tories are offering in Wales. I know what Labour has offered - 20mph speed limits etc. I believe Plaid are broadly the same, but in a nationalist way. Reform are the opposite, wanting to revive heavy industry. What are the Tories for there? All I know is that they recently deposed their leader for being too right wing (is my reading). Why do they want power there?

    It would be piss funny if Refuk take power in Wales.

    "We're going to reopen coal mines and the steel works"

    Go on then...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,227
    DavidL said:

    This is the first time I have heard of the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Wikipedia dates it to 1930s Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

    Not a fan of Star Trek: Voyager then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)
    I always assumed it was Aesop. I am genuinely surprised to learn it is newer.
    He did, however, do the world's first 'there's a fly in my soup' gag.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fly_in_the_Soup
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,249

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,195
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    Leaving NATO and open borders are insane policy positions in the current climate…
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,931
    DavidL said:

    This is the first time I have heard of the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Wikipedia dates it to 1930s Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

    Not a fan of Star Trek: Voyager then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)
    I always assumed it was Aesop. I am genuinely surprised to learn it is newer.
    Google Advanced Book Search is often better as it takes one to the source, as indeed in this instance. Which shows it's from ancient times - how ancient depends how strict one is feeling.

    https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Report/Eu9vr5h874kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=fable+scorpion+frog&pg=RA1-PA11&printsec=frontcover
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,931

    "both Sir Keir Starmer, Labour, and Rachel Reeves"

    Oh dear.

    This is what happens when TSE disses autocorrect.
    Kermit's Revenge.
    TBF it parses perfectly correctly, as TSE is obviously reminding us that SKS is actually a nominally Labour Prime Minister (which some in his party have been not so sure about).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,249

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    Leaving NATO and open borders are insane policy positions in the current climate…
    Both are long term ambitions rather than short term ones, but clearly set out an agenda against militarism and pro-immigration.

    I don't expect majority appeal for such policies, but nice to have an alternative voice out there.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058
    dunham said:

    DavidL said:

    The surge in Reform has obviously hit the Tories badly. The split in the opposition in this way has also made Labour look less bad than it would have otherwise.

    An awful lot for the Tories depends on how Reform does in May. At the moment the shine is coming off them and Farage but they remain the strongest single party. Will that still be the case in May? Kemi's future may well depend on the answer.

    I agree, but the surge in Reform is an almost unprecedented situation, and doesn’t necessarily warrant the Tories ditching their leader next year, at least 2 years before the next likely GE, even if they perform poorly in the various elections in May 2026.
    Given the dearth of remaining talent in the parliamentary Tory party, it is difficult to see who might do better. Cleverly seems wishy washy. Jenrick is passionate, and would compete effectively against Farage, although his wife might be a handicap in this regard. Who else might be a front runner in any leadership contest?
    Yep, same problem I have pointed out for Labour with Starmer. He's terrible but it doesn't mean that there is a better alternative waiting in the wings.

    The paucity of political talent across the board is a major problem for the country. Whatever gets us out of this mess, it's not going to be effective leadership.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,952
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    I'm not a Faragist. I'm Labour. Just not of the North London hand-wringing variety.

    I'm also an environmentalist, so seeing the Green Party turn even further away from what should be their primary focus is very disappointing.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,004

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    I'm not a Faragist. I'm Labour. Just not of the North London hand-wringing variety.

    I'm also an environmentalist, so seeing the Green Party turn even further away from what should be their primary focus is very disappointing.
    Have you ever voted Green (primary focussed or otherwise)?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,093
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    As per Sandys quote it is the tone that has changed. Some Green voters enjoyed being detached and (in their opinion) above mere party politics. Now they are participating and it is noisier and less comfortable.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,205
    NEW: The #FIFAWorldCup match in Seattle on June 26 had already been designated as a “Pride Match” before the fixtures were decided. Now we know the teams who will play in it… Egypt and Iran.

    Both nations have draconian anti-gay laws.

    For @outsports


    https://x.com/jonboy79/status/1997747481787179038?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude seriously is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Oh I completely agree. Europe needs to stand with Ukraine, it is far more important to us than it is to the US.

    What they are still providing to Ukraine is intelligence which I am guessing is largely analysis of satellite imagery. This is fairly critical for the deployment of the much smaller Ukrainian army and the inability of Europe to provide a substitute shows a serious hole in our armory that we need to address. No doubt there are others along with the several generation shortfall in drones but these need to be our defence priorities. The US is no longer a reliable or even rational friend. Re-electing Donald Trump is fairly conclusive proof of that.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,936
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    It's not even "You're on your own, Europe". It's seeking to direct Europe in a very specific ("help Europe correct its current trajectory") way.

    American power without responsibility, as someone once sort of put it.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,952
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    Leaving NATO and open borders are insane policy positions in the current climate…
    Both are long term ambitions rather than short term ones, but clearly set out an agenda against militarism and pro-immigration.

    I don't expect majority appeal for such policies, but nice to have an alternative voice out there.
    That voice belongs in Your Party, not the Greens.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,519
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    Certainly since the collapse of the Corbynite wave, when many of those folks went off into the Greens.

    By choosing Polanski they have simply adopted a leader who best represents the party as it current is, at national level at least.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,227
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    Leaving NATO and open borders are insane policy positions in the current climate…
    Both are long term ambitions rather than short term ones, but clearly set out an agenda against militarism and pro-immigration.

    I don't expect majority appeal for such policies, but nice to have an alternative voice out there.
    Leaving a defensive organisation isn't an agenda against militarism; it would be an enabler of militarism.

    In any event, it's apparently not their current policy:
    https://greenparty.org.uk/2025/06/02/greens-call-for-investment-in-genuine-global-security/
    ..In anticipation of the outcome of the strategic defence review being published today, Ellie Chowns MP, who holds the defence brief for the Parliamentary Green Party, said:

    “We acknowledge the need for greater defence spending and continued NATO membership, but also call for a more thorough reappraisal of strategic defence alliances. With Trump no longer a reliable ally, we need to deepen our defence cooperation with the EU, and review AUKUS...
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,636
    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:

    1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.

    2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.

    Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
    There is of course a further option, accept being part of Russia's or China's sphere of influence. The US seems to think Eastern Europe at least should go back into being part of Russia's
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,952

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    I'm not a Faragist. I'm Labour. Just not of the North London hand-wringing variety.

    I'm also an environmentalist, so seeing the Green Party turn even further away from what should be their primary focus is very disappointing.
    Have you ever voted Green (primary focussed or otherwise)?
    Yes. In locals and euros in the past. Part of the deal to get my wife to vote Labour in GEs.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,227
    What a difference a decade makes.

    2015, Marco Rubio: “As soon as I take office, I will move quickly to increase pressure on Moscow, under my administration, there will be no pleadings for meetings with Vladimir Putin. He will be treated for what he is – a gangster and a thug.”
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,433

    This is the first time I have heard of the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Wikipedia dates it to 1930s Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

    Many thanks. After reading your link I 'knew' the story but had never connected it to either scorpion or frog.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058
    Nigelb said:

    What a difference a decade makes.

    2015, Marco Rubio: “As soon as I take office, I will move quickly to increase pressure on Moscow, under my administration, there will be no pleadings for meetings with Vladimir Putin. He will be treated for what he is – a gangster and a thug.”

    This is what happens when the US also elect a gangster and a thug.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,670
    Morning all :)

    Comparing the Find Out Now poll numbers from those of a year ago, the two shifts have been from Conservative to Reform and from Labour to Green (the former 6-7 points and the latter 9).

    There was quite a hiatus in polling after the July 2024 GE and that has continued - Techne seem to have stopped polling while YouGov did no VI polling until January this year.

    Comparing that poll (Jan 12th 2025) with their current numbers:

    Reform 26% (+1)
    Labour: 19% (-7)
    Conservatives: 19% (-3)
    Greens: 16% (+8)
    Liberal Democrats: 14% (nc)

    As with Find Out Now, a substantial move from Labour to Green, the LDs static but a much smaller move from Conservative to Reform.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444
    ...

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    The party as was, or left wing carpetbaggers?

    As for share in the polls, remember the lesson of the Alliance. Vote share is vanity, seats are sanity and swapping first place in Waveney Valley for improved second places in lots of places isn't a win.
    Bit of a wasted opportunity there to finish with:

    "and swapping first place in Waveney Valley for improved second places in lots of places is a calamity."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,004

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    I'm not a Faragist. I'm Labour. Just not of the North London hand-wringing variety.

    I'm also an environmentalist, so seeing the Green Party turn even further away from what should be their primary focus is very disappointing.
    Have you ever voted Green (primary focussed or otherwise)?
    Yes. In locals and euros in the past. Part of the deal to get my wife to vote Labour in GEs.
    Fair enough.
    Not to enquire too closely in to the goings on in Casa Rentool, but does that mean Mrs Sandy is a natural Green supporter? How does she feel about the current iteration?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,640
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,371

    Good morning, everyone.

    Fresh Thai and Cambodian border clashes, alas:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g5e1p585qt

    From my limited knowledge it seems the long history means multiple disputes over different eras.

    Was that one of Trump's great successes
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058
    Donald Trump claims that Zelenskyy has not read the latest peace proposal.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gpzep9n8et

    But he has the advantage of being able to read it in the original Russian. The meeting in London seems as good a place as any for Europe to repudiate the proposal and come up with something a lot better.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,227
    A good example of the sunk cost fallacy.

    The Army killed TRACER, the Army killed FRES, if they kill Ajax they will have spent nearly four decades not replacing CVRT.

    They will never be allowed to spend any money ever again.

    This is why Ajax is unflushable

    https://x.com/thinkdefence/status/1997445828294615443

    Frankly, whoever has been managing army weapons procurement should not be allowed to spend any money ever again.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,640

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,249

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    Leaving NATO and open borders are insane policy positions in the current climate…
    Both are long term ambitions rather than short term ones, but clearly set out an agenda against militarism and pro-immigration.

    I don't expect majority appeal for such policies, but nice to have an alternative voice out there.
    That voice belongs in Your Party, not the Greens.
    The polling says otherwise.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,636
    edited 8:54AM

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The Poles regard themselves as a victor nation in WW2 that was sold down the river by the West, and occupied by the Russians.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,004

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The Poles regard themselves as a victor nation in WW2 that was sold down the river by tgecWest, and occupied by the Russians.
    Not unreasonably either.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,205
    edited 8:58AM
    If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?

    Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then blowing it up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,058
    We are coming into Aberdeen station (late, of course) and it is still bloody dark. The amount of surface water lying around is impressive.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,670
    isam said:

    If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?

    Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example

    It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.

    The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.

    I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.

    Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,640

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The Poles regard themselves as a victor nation in WW2 that was sold down the river by the West, and occupied by the Russians.
    Poland sealed its fate in 1938 when it supported Germany to partition Czechoslovakia.

    Even among all the bad decisions that countries made in the last 1930s and early 1940s that one has always struck me as one of the worst.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,494
    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444
    ...
    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:

    1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.

    2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.

    Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
    In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.

    I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,756

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The Poles regard themselves as a victor nation in WW2 that was sold down the river by the West, and occupied by the Russians.
    Poland sealed its fate in 1938 when it supported Germany to partition Czechoslovakia.

    Even among all the bad decisions that countries made in the last 1930s and early 1940s that one has always struck me as one of the worst.
    From the imperial point of view Europe is a rich province ripe for plunder and Russia is potentially the same. So why not combine them, instead of having them fight each other? The real enemy is across the Pacific.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,169
    tlg86 said:

    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

    Nope.

    I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.

    The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.

    That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,004
    edited 9:13AM

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The Poles regard themselves as a victor nation in WW2 that was sold down the river by the West, and occupied by the Russians.
    Poland sealed its fate in 1938 when it supported Germany to partition Czechoslovakia.

    Even among all the bad decisions that countries made in the last 1930s and early 1940s that one has always struck me as one of the worst.
    It certainly indicates the idea of going along with anything the Brits supported was fraught with risk.

    'A piece of Czechoslovakia for our time'
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444
    stodge said:

    isam said:

    If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?

    Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example

    It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.

    The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.

    I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.

    Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
    I disagree.

    Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.

    The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,205
    tlg86 said:

    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

    A bet I’d be interested to see priced up is “Will the Conservatives lead Reform in an opinion poll in 2026?”

    5/2 Yes 2/7 No?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,289
    edited 9:17AM

    ...

    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:

    1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.

    2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.

    Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
    In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.

    I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
    That would be a bauble of influence.

    The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.

    You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?

    (*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,670
    edited 9:16AM
    tlg86 said:

    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

    Probably but the possibility of poor local election results next May looms on the horizon.

    I think what will help Badenoch is or are two things - first, Labour will also do very badly and second, Reform will likely over reach in terms of expectation management. It's a fine balance between getting your supporters out to vote because you can win places like Bromley, Bexley and Havering but you need the campaigners on the ground and does Reform have those in quantity where they need them?

    That for me is the conundrum even though it's also likely local Conservative organisations have atrophied.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,093
    tlg86 said:

    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

    I think if the electorate was the 2023 membership the pressure for Jenrick would be too great to resist. But by 2026 a decent chunk of Jenrick supporters have fled to Reform, and the membership will therefore be more moderate/passive.

    I think she stays until the GE, more often than not.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,289
    edited 9:23AM

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The Poles regard themselves as a victor nation in WW2 that was sold down the river by the West, and occupied by the Russians.
    Poland sealed its fate in 1938 when it supported Germany to partition Czechoslovakia.

    Even among all the bad decisions that countries made in the last 1930s and early 1940s that one has always struck me as one of the worst.
    The UK also supported Germany to partition Czechoslovakia.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,205

    tlg86 said:

    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

    Nope.

    I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.

    The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.

    That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
    I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t

    It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,640

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The Poles regard themselves as a victor nation in WW2 that was sold down the river by the West, and occupied by the Russians.
    Poland sealed its fate in 1938 when it supported Germany to partition Czechoslovakia.

    Even among all the bad decisions that countries made in the last 1930s and early 1940s that one has always struck me as one of the worst.
    It certainly indicates the idea of going along with anything the Brits supported was fraught with risk.

    'A piece of Czechoslovakia for our time'
    Poland didn't need any help from Chamberlain to chose a side in 1938.

    They'd already received their 'piece of paper' from Hitler in 1934.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,952

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    PBers will be amused to learn that autocorrect repeatedly tried to turn the headline into 'The Tory Scorpion and Kermit the Frog.

    It's not easy being Green.

    (I've got some sympathy for the current batch of Green MPs. They've gone to all the trouble of getting elected, only to be lumbered an opportunist gob on a stick as leader.)
    A Gob on a stick that has doubled their polling and had the overwhelming backing of the party.

    Badenoch and astarmer could be forgiven a bit of jelousy.
    Like a party where everyone is happily listening to Chopin, and then a bunch of gatecrashers arrive and start playing Metallica.

    The Green Party as we knew it is no more.
    I don't think that Polanski has changed much party policy. Leaving NATO and open borders are longstanding positions for example.

    While your sympathies seem increasingly Faragist, I don't think it is the Green Party that has changed much.
    I'm not a Faragist. I'm Labour. Just not of the North London hand-wringing variety.

    I'm also an environmentalist, so seeing the Green Party turn even further away from what should be their primary focus is very disappointing.
    Have you ever voted Green (primary focussed or otherwise)?
    Yes. In locals and euros in the past. Part of the deal to get my wife to vote Labour in GEs.
    Fair enough.
    Not to enquire too closely in to the goings on in Casa Rentool, but does that mean Mrs Sandy is a natural Green supporter? How does she feel about the current iteration?
    She despairs as to the state of the Greens. Won't be voting for them.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,636
    stodge said:

    tlg86 said:

    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

    Probably but the possibility of poor local election results next May looms on the horizon.

    I think what will help Badenoch is or are two things - first, Labour will also do very badly and second, Reform will likely over reach in terms of expectation management. It's a fine balance between getting your supporters out to vote because you can win places like Bromley, Bexley and Havering but you need the campaigners on the ground and does Reform have those in quantity where they need them?

    That for me is the conundrum even though it's also likely local Conservative organisations have atrophied.
    Also, Labour are cancelling a load of elections which will limit the damage (to both parties). Hampshire can't go Reform if there isn't an election
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444

    ...

    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    If, as seems likely, we're going back to 'spheres of influence' geopolitics, then Europe (for which I primarily mean the UK and the EU) have two choices:

    1) Accept being a part of the US's sphere of influence. That's probably looks much like the status quo for the UK or France, but looks far more perilous the further east you go. As it would be up to the US and Russia to agree the boundaries between their respective spheres of influence.

    2) Demand that Europe is collectively has it's own independent sphere of influence, and that we are willing to defend our boundary from Russia's, assuming no help or support from the US. In which case, I'd question why we'd continue to host bases from the US.

    Not allowing Ukraine to be forced to capitulate to American demand is a key first step to establishing option 2 as our future.
    In the long-term, my preferred spheres of influence would be (unlikely as I agree they seem) the EU - to include Ukraine and Russia, the United Kingdom, the USA, India, China, and everyone else.

    I wish the Continent nothing but good, but I don't want Britain to be entangled in its affairs. We should be quite separate, with a very separate purpose.
    That would be a bauble of influence.

    The UK (pop. 70m) just doesn't have the scale to compete with the EU, America, China or India, all of whom have at least 5 times the population. We should throw our lot in with the EU or America, as per @Ratters suggestion.

    You are a little bit deluded*. You know the empire has gone right?

    (*See also 'the EU including Russia'.)
    I am not suggesting we would necessarily be competing with them, I am suggesting we must be independent of them as a power. The post-war experiment in not being independent from either the US or the EU has been ruinous. We should be independent, with the ability to defend the British Isles against most if not all comers. I see that as realpolitik, not deluded.

    As for the EU including Russia, isn't the dream of the EU for the cradle of Western civilisation to be a counterweight to US hegemony? I don't see that happening without the resources and strategic assets of Russia. And the EU could act as a civilising force there.

    As things stand, if the EU spends all its resources in a war with Russia (and vice versa) all that really does is distract both from China, which increases its overlordship of Russia and its creeping influence over Europe.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,670

    stodge said:

    isam said:

    If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?

    Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example

    It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.

    The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.

    I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.

    Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
    I disagree.

    Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.

    The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
    Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.

    Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.

    The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.

    A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,025
    isam said:

    tlg86 said:

    I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

    Nope.

    I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.

    The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.

    That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
    I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t

    It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
    Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?

    As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.

    No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.

  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 493

    This was an Only Connect question last week, measuring Tory leaderships in months.

    What the chart also shows, with four of the seven leaders lasting only two years (or less) is there will be ample time to replace not only Kemi but also Kemi's replacement before the next general election is due in July 2029. The ideal time to seize the crown is early 2027.

    Do you see Labour going until then?

    I see Sir getting the chop. With Angela Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a brief and messy Premiership, possibly followed by a loveless coronation for Wes (Sunak) for an uninspiring short spell of dismal decline management to wrap things up. I'm not sure how long that will all take, becauase Starmer's polling is nowhere compared to Borises polling at the same time.
    The next header will be the fable of turkeys not voting for Christmas. Labour's majority is 150-ish even after defections so the Opposition cannot vote down the government so Labour will continue until the last moment unless it recovers its poll lead or elects a billionaire Prime Minister unaware that his doomed MPs have mortgages to pay.
    But it's in the hands of the PM too. Rishi Sunak went deliberately early last time. His financial considerations were obviously very different to those of rank and file Tory MPs. What if PM Wes tries to 'get a grip' and the PLP don't play ball? He could threaten to go to the Palace, and could well have his own career path lined up.
    If PM Wes has a new job lined up – although what would be a promotion? Archbishop of Canterbury? England football manager? The Rest is Politics is better paid according to Rory, who described getting football championship money, and AC is getting on in years – then he could simply resign and go and do it without calling an election and ushering in a Reform and/or Conservative government.
    My point is not that he would precipitate a GE because he had career plans, but that his calculus in doing so would be totally different to that of the rank and file Labour MP, so 'turkeys voting for Christmas' is not a hard and fast rule. In the Tories case, the turkeys did not get a choice.
    I don’t think the PM can dissolve Parliament - only Parliament can do that. If Streeting were to resign without the support of the PLP for an election the palace would ask someone else (I assume the deputy leader?) to form a government
    The PM can and does dissolve Parliament. To be precise, the monarch can dissolve Parliament on the PM's advice, and will only refuse to accept the PM's advice in limited circumstances. And the PM does not resign to call an election. They remain PM until after the election and only resign if they have lost. The PM can always call an election regardless of whether they have the support of their MPs. The monarch cannot respond to a request for an election by asking someone else to form a government (well, theoretically he could sack the PM and appoint someone else, but it would break the constitutional conventions under which the monarchy operates).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,444
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    isam said:

    If the Conservative Party is the scorpion, and Badenoch the frog, it would follow that getting rid of Kemi is an act of self harm that would kill the Tory Party wouldn’t it?

    Seems to me the frog needs to be a dependable organisation, and the scorpion an individual that always lets people down or plays a snide move. Boris as the scorpion to the Tory Party Frog? Farage doing a deal with the Conservatives, then it blowing up once they’re in Downing St might be a better example

    It's less to do with scorpions and frogs in all honesty.

    The Conservatives are not in control of their own destiny - IF Reform prospers, they will end up the fourth or fifth party in the next Commons. They need Reform to fail and for the bulk of that vote to come to them and that's two areas about which they can do very little.

    I suspect Badenoch would like to see Labour doing a little better as well to blunt the Reform threat in Labour seats and the LDs doing worse so they can regain some or all of the 50-60 seast lost in that direction last time.

    Again, little of that in the Conservative purview - the big question (as an outsider) is the Conservative relationship to Reform. It's clear Farage wants no kind of pact, deal or alliance at this time - that might change - but do the Tories try to be Reform-lite in the hope Farage departs and they can get a big share of the Reform vote or do they mark out a distinctive niche and hope the voters see them as a viable alternative to Labour and Reform?
    I disagree.

    Look at the Lib Dems and Labour. For from growing fat off the other's polling misery, their success or failure usually go together.

    The Tories do need give people reasons to vote for them in preference to Reform, but they shouldn't wish for Reform's failure or disappearance - Reform has revived the right. The Tories and Reform look like being the one and two parties in polls soon.
    Not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree.

    Yes, Conservative Governments in 1970, 1979 and the 2015 majority came about because of the collapse of the Liberals and clearly the Conservatives would like to win back all or most of the seats lost to the LDs last time but that won't get them anywhere near a Commons majority. They need to win seats off Labour and in many of those Reform are the nearest challengers and this is the Reform Party which won't, at least under Farage, countenance any pact or deal with the Tories so it's possible we'll see dozens of seats where Reform wins, the Conservatives are second and Labour collapse to third.

    The fundamental is whether the next election is going to be Labour versus Not Labour or Reform versus Not Reform just as 2024 was Conservative versus Not Conservative.

    A final thought - this obsession with "left" versus "right" is just sloppy anachronistic thinking. Reform are not a "right wing" party by many measures - they are a populist party which incorporates both socially conservative elements (which is where the Conservatives went wrong arguably) and considerable State interventionism (in other words, the "you can have your cake and eat it" party which brings in the Labour supporters). They are as fiscally incoherent and illiterate as all the other parties including the Conservatives.
    Personally, I see Reform as a right wing party, responding to desperate times. They want to lift the benefit cap (though now in a very partial way) as a response to the demographic crisis. They want to nationalise bits of key industry to ensure their very survival, not as an ideological choice.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,371

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Nigelb said:

    Reposting this from the end of the last thread, as I think the endgame of whether or not Europe stands up to the Trump administration's attempt to sell out Ukraine, and our future security, is rather nearer in time even than the next change of Tory leader.

    Necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.

    WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
    Dear Americans,
    Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.

    While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.

    THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.

    You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.

    Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.

    Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..

    https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515

    Where the Americans do have a point is that the do not owe us anything and we have been very content to sit under their umbrella. Of course it suited the Americans too when confronting the USSR but the key was always their interests, not ours. Now that they have lost interest in Russia (except as a source of bribes, natch) we have to look after ourselves. Which is fair enough but also a somewhat uncomfortable adjustment.
    The Americans have zero point at the moment, and to pretend we should treat their attitude with any sympathy is absurd.

    If they were saying as you do that we have to look after ourselves, then it would be a betrayal of an alliance which has lasted since shortly after the end of WWII. It would be a massive detriment to both them and us, but if they are so determined, then fair enough, so be it.

    But they are not saying that.

    They have abandoned any pretence of funding Ukraine; they have made it clear that they will not materially participate in any postwar security guarantees; but they nonetheless are trying to dictate what is in effect a partial surrender on Russia's terms - while simultaneously trying to cut commercial deals with Putin.

    That would destroy Europe's security for a generation. We should not be allowing that.
    Which requires Europe's leaders to show some leadership.

    Starting within Donald Tusk.

    This is his opportunity to show he is more than a posturer:

    despite his relaxed style in his office, where he often dispenses with suit and tie, he has a firm belief in the need at times to apply some muscle.

    In July 2015, Merkel and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, could see no way through after 14 hours of talks over the crisis that looked set to end in Grexit. “Sorry, but there is no way you are leaving this room,” Tusk told them.

    The past five years have seen Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the migration crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, of whom Tusk has been an outspoken critic. But it will be Brexit that surely defines the Tusk legacy. As an aide says: “For him, Brexit is a catastrophic breach of the liberal democratic order that he fought for as a young man, an unravelling of everything he believes in.”

    Not everyone in Brussels is convinced the comments last week were wise. But, confronted by May on Thursday, Tusk did not budge: “He remains of the view that while the truth may be more painful, it is always more useful”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/donald-tusk-passionate-politician-poland-fight-against-communism

    No, its not Brexit that will define Tusk's legacy but Ukraine.
    Did anyone notice Tusk trying to rewrite history alongside his posturing last week:

    Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.

    https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1997336196007985541?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    I don't remember Poland being an ally of the western world between 1945 and 1990.
    The people did not have much choice, sure if they had they would not have picked the Russians.
Sign In or Register to comment.