Skip to content

Why laying Nigel Farage is a risky business – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,874
edited January 6 in General
Why laying Nigel Farage is a risky business – politicalbetting.com

For most of 2024 I advocated laying Nigel Farage in the next Prime Minister market not because I am sure Reform will not win the next general election but I thought Labour might end up ousting Sir Keir Starmer if things looked bad for them but in light of yesterday morning’s thread that might be a courageous position.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 85,031
    Neither back or lay, IMO.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912
    edited January 6
    Even though Starmer isn’t likely to be forced out, given his age I’d be somewhat surprised if he is still there at the next election.

    I would say autumn 2027/early 2028 might be a good bet.

    We should also remember of course that Farage is getting on a bit and has an expensive lifestyle to maintain which is easier on the American lecture circuit. There is no certainty he will be around come the next election either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 132,690
    I think those odds are about right. If Starmer does go it would likely be in favour of his heir apparent to lead Labour into the next GE. Though of course Starmer could stay PM if Streeting was only elected Labour leader just before the GE campaign. Tactical voting would then be key in deciding whether Farage won that election and became PM or not
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912
    IanB2 said:

    We could take the view that if Reform wins the next election, the consequences will be sufficiently catastrophic that a few betting losses will be the very least of our worries?

    They’re definitely near Truss worthy on the economy.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,519
    ydoethur said:

    Even though Starmer isn’t likely to be forced out, given his age I’d be somewhat surprised if he is still there at the next election.

    I would say autumn 2027/early 2028 might be a good bet.

    We should also remember of course that Farage is getting on a bit and has an expensive lifestyle to maintain which is easier on the American lecture circuit. There is no certainty he will be around come the next election either.

    If we do get a Reform landslide I am sure they will amend the rules to allow Farage to earn money on the American lecture circuit whilst being PM.

    Quite a lot of checks and balances are predicated on the assumption that honourable men and women will be PM, if that doesn't happen then as we see with the mango Mussolini those guardrails aren't very effective.

    Things like an even split of Speakers/Deputy Speakers and opposition MPs chairing select committees going out of the window.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912

    ydoethur said:

    Even though Starmer isn’t likely to be forced out, given his age I’d be somewhat surprised if he is still there at the next election.

    I would say autumn 2027/early 2028 might be a good bet.

    We should also remember of course that Farage is getting on a bit and has an expensive lifestyle to maintain which is easier on the American lecture circuit. There is no certainty he will be around come the next election either.

    If we do get a Reform landslide I am sure they will amend the rules to allow Farage to earn money on the American lecture circuit whilst being PM.

    Quite a lot of checks and balances are predicated on the assumption that honourable men and women will be PM, if that doesn't happen then as we see with the mango Mussolini those guardrails aren't very effective.

    Things like an even split of Speakers/Deputy Speakers and opposition MPs chairing select committees going out of the window.
    I was thinking more he might bugger off beforehand.

    Although to be fair as he’s hardly ever around anyway except to quarrel with his own MPs that might not make much difference.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,519
    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,264
    At this stage, I think Reform are still like Labour, in the 1918-22 period. So, I think it’s more likely they will be the next Opposition, rather than the next government.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,519
    Mark your calendars.

    I am proposing Monday 15 June as an extra bank holiday in Scotland, to mark our return to the World Cup after 28 years. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿


    https://x.com/JohnSwinney/status/2008179254790410637
  • eekeek Posts: 32,234
    FPT
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,264

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    My view remains that Labour’s NEV in May, will be in the low to mid teens, 20% down on 2022.

    That would imply their vote share across London, falling from 40% in 2022, to 20%.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,044
    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,998
    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,115
    “Why laying Nigel Farage is a risky business” - according to his ex-wife?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,115
    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,823

    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.

    The YouGov vote shares are a nightmare for bettors, because hundreds of seats are going to be won on very low vote shares, and by very small margins.

    About the only thing you can say with certainty is that - if they hold out- then the SNP will get 40-odd seats, and the LibDems will get around 100, given both those parties highly geographically concentrated vote share.

    For Reform and the Conservatives, a lot depends on how efficient their vote is. If it is moderate efficient, they'll clean up. If it isn't, then I think 150-200 for Reform is probably about right.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912
    Sandpit said:

    “Why laying Nigel Farage is a risky business” - according to his ex-wife?

    Which ex-wife?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,998
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,115
    edited January 6
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.

    Hospitality and retail are dying on their arse, and business rates is a large part of the reason why.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,519
    Sandpit said:

    “Why laying Nigel Farage is a risky business” - according to his ex-wife?

    You need to get your mind out of the gutter.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,519
    I've just seen Jamie Smith's dismissal.

    Eesh.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,771
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.
    Also, eating out has already become significantly more expensive over the last couple of years. It's not just eat out vs stay in and cook vs fast food, it's eat out vs some other form of entertainment
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,795
    IanB2 said:

    We could take the view that if Reform wins the next election, the consequences will be sufficiently catastrophic that a few betting losses will be the very least of our worries?

    Given the track record of the last decade or so the consequences of the main parties winning has hardly been the land of milk and honey.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,164
    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    After all, it was a temporary COVID fix and that's now long in the past. As with the Triple Lock, the issue is that there was never an exit strategy.

    Besides, I think we all agree that we want an economy where there are fewer jobs but the employment mix is tilted towards higher productivity. What else does "sucking in cheap labour is bad" mean? Hospitality jobs are pretty much defined as low productivity. It's not nice for owners, staff or customers, but that's how it is.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,795
    @TheScreamingEagles I’m disappointed this wasn’t accompanied by a picture !!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,998
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.

    Hospitality and retail are dying on their arse, and business rates is a large part of the reason why.
    He charges £35 for fish and chips, you think his sales will go down by 30% if he makes it £37 and the rest of the industry also raises their prices? Implausible.

    If people have a fixed budget for eating out, then a small increase in costs should correspond to a small decrease in eating out.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,115

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.
    Also, eating out has already become significantly more expensive over the last couple of years. It's not just eat out vs stay in and cook vs fast food, it's eat out vs some other form of entertainment
    Yes, inflation in the sector has already been high in the past few years, now we have increasing minimum wage and business rates that only add to the problem. The NI changes last year made a big difference to businesses operating on unskilled labour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,519
    Taz said:

    @TheScreamingEagles I’m disappointed this wasn’t accompanied by a picture !!

    Don't worry, I will be using it in the next few days.

    PBers you can thank Taz for the request.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 16,639

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    I predict a moderately solid 6 months for the Lib Dems in the polls.

    Immigration and the depredations of woke are fading from the news (immigration partly due to numbers, partly time of year), the predatory USA is in everyone’s faces and will continue to be, and Labour is prevaricating - as governments tend to do. That will frustrate many. Those looking to support the “rules based international order” have an obvious candidate to vote for, and it’s not Zack’s Greens. Then we have local elections in May in which the Lib Dems will as always outperform national polling and get a small popularity bump as minds are focused in the polling booth.

    Now, I would say that wouldn’t I? But no actually. There are plenty of times the party looks obviously ripe for a squeeze. Just not now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912

    I've just seen Jamie Smith's dismissal.

    Eesh.

    Ben Foakes would not have played that shot.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,580
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even though Starmer isn’t likely to be forced out, given his age I’d be somewhat surprised if he is still there at the next election.

    I would say autumn 2027/early 2028 might be a good bet.

    We should also remember of course that Farage is getting on a bit and has an expensive lifestyle to maintain which is easier on the American lecture circuit. There is no certainty he will be around come the next election either.

    If we do get a Reform landslide I am sure they will amend the rules to allow Farage to earn money on the American lecture circuit whilst being PM.

    Quite a lot of checks and balances are predicated on the assumption that honourable men and women will be PM, if that doesn't happen then as we see with the mango Mussolini those guardrails aren't very effective.

    Things like an even split of Speakers/Deputy Speakers and opposition MPs chairing select committees going out of the window.
    I was thinking more he might bugger off beforehand.

    Although to be fair as he’s hardly ever around anyway except to quarrel with his own MPs that might not make much difference.
    I thought he'd relocated to the Public Gallery, when he is not avoiding Clacton?
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 16,639
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.
    Also, eating out has already become significantly more expensive over the last couple of years. It's not just eat out vs stay in and cook vs fast food, it's eat out vs some other form of entertainment
    Yes, inflation in the sector has already been high in the past few years, now we have increasing minimum wage and business rates that only add to the problem. The NI changes last year made a big difference to businesses operating on unskilled labour.
    On the other hand, eating out is one thing that seems to have become substantially more expensive abroad than in the UK. The US is off the scale, and that’s before you add their ludicrous tips. Continental Europe is, in the North and West at least (with the honourable exception of Sweden) a notch more expensive than here. Only Japan has gone the other way.

    Some of that is exchange rate since 2016, but not all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912
    England have been pretty poor in this Test again. Dozy batting and inept fielding.

    The bowlers get the blame, and to be fair they haven’t been brilliant, but there’s a limit to what you can do when your batsmen don’t score runs and your fielders don’t hold simple catches.

    If Rob Key survives this debacle I will want to know what those photos he has of Gould and Thompson show.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,115
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.

    Hospitality and retail are dying on their arse, and business rates is a large part of the reason why.
    He charges £35 for fish and chips, you think his sales will go down by 30% if he makes it £37 and the rest of the industry also raises their prices? Implausible.

    If people have a fixed budget for eating out, then a small increase in costs should correspond to a small decrease in eating out.
    Perhaps not such a big effect at the £35 main course level, but at the £15-20 level absolutely.

    The named chefs with ‘destination’ restaurants will most likely survive, in the same way as Jeremy Clarkson’s farm and pub will likely survive. That doesn’t mean that thousands of others are not in serious trouble though, and they welcome the more famous among themselves highlighting the issues.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,058
    edited January 6
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.
    Also, eating out has already become significantly more expensive over the last couple of years. It's not just eat out vs stay in and cook vs fast food, it's eat out vs some other form of entertainment
    Yes, inflation in the sector has already been high in the past few years, now we have increasing minimum wage and business rates that only add to the problem. The NI changes last year made a big difference to businesses operating on unskilled labour.
    In the very long term that might be a good thing for the UK economy. A lot of the debates we have on PB are dealing with low productivity and the large numbers of people in these kinds of jobs - frankly, that's what hospitality represents.

    The general theory is that taxes should be simple, as close to the point of consumption as possible, and unavoidable. I.e. income tax and VAT. Business rates isn't the worst tax in the world because it's adjusted for property value and ticks two of those boxes. It also hits zombie firms hard in a way a profit tax does not.

    But I agree with eek that it's the big, simple taxes like income tax that should dominate the tax burden as far as possible. Politically impossible to put personal taxes up to pay for business tax cuts though, even though it would all come out in the wash and probably boost the economy quite a bit.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,574
    Entirely off-topic, I hope NATO is preparing for the imminent departure of the US.

    I assume that whilst we can simply banish US personnel, extracting the involvement of the US military in much of our equipment would be much harder. But we must, however hard this is.

    Best case scenario: Trump is frit, they lose the mid terms and go to jail. Sane American politicians will try and rebuild bridges, which we will but without just blindly buying American kit any more.

    Worst case: we’re combating coordinated Axis cyber warfare coming at us from the US and Russia. The moment when the globe starts dumping US treasuries will be something 🫣
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,044
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.

    The YouGov vote shares are a nightmare for bettors, because hundreds of seats are going to be won on very low vote shares, and by very small margins.

    About the only thing you can say with certainty is that - if they hold out- then the SNP will get 40-odd seats, and the LibDems will get around 100, given both those parties highly geographically concentrated vote share.

    For Reform and the Conservatives, a lot depends on how efficient their vote is. If it is moderate efficient, they'll clean up. If it isn't, then I think 150-200 for Reform is probably about right.
    Yes, I think so - but I'm not quite as bullish on the LDs as you are.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,044
    MelonB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.
    Also, eating out has already become significantly more expensive over the last couple of years. It's not just eat out vs stay in and cook vs fast food, it's eat out vs some other form of entertainment
    Yes, inflation in the sector has already been high in the past few years, now we have increasing minimum wage and business rates that only add to the problem. The NI changes last year made a big difference to businesses operating on unskilled labour.
    On the other hand, eating out is one thing that seems to have become substantially more expensive abroad than in the UK. The US is off the scale, and that’s before you add their ludicrous tips. Continental Europe is, in the North and West at least (with the honourable exception of Sweden) a notch more expensive than here. Only Japan has gone the other way.

    Some of that is exchange rate since 2016, but not all.
    Eating out has become so expensive in the UK over the last 3 years that me and my family have effectively stopped doing it.

    No doubt this is hitting hospitality hard.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,324

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    After all, it was a temporary COVID fix and that's now long in the past. As with the Triple Lock, the issue is that there was never an exit strategy.

    Besides, I think we all agree that we want an economy where there are fewer jobs but the employment mix is tilted towards higher productivity. What else does "sucking in cheap labour is bad" mean? Hospitality jobs are pretty much defined as low productivity. It's not nice for owners, staff or customers, but that's how it is.
    Your comment made me wonder what would count as a high-productivity hospitality dispenser. Does McDonalds count as hospitality? It's fairly high productivity I assume. And increasingly robotic I believe.

    Which perhaps makes your point, actually.

    Coincidentally the Fast Food Nation chap has published a 25-years-on piece in the Graun.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/jan/06/we-still-live-in-fast-food-nation-eric-schlosser
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,044
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.

    The YouGov vote shares are a nightmare for bettors, because hundreds of seats are going to be won on very low vote shares, and by very small margins.

    About the only thing you can say with certainty is that - if they hold out- then the SNP will get 40-odd seats, and the LibDems will get around 100, given both those parties highly geographically concentrated vote share.

    For Reform and the Conservatives, a lot depends on how efficient their vote is. If it is moderate efficient, they'll clean up. If it isn't, then I think 150-200 for Reform is probably about right.
    Just to add to this, in key marginals I'd expect tactical voting in favour of Labour and against Reform, to block them, based on current trends and voting behaviour.

    That will tend to ameliorate against Reform vote efficiency. They effectively need apathy/resignation to clean up, and I don't think they have it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,444
    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,958
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    “Why laying Nigel Farage is a risky business” - according to his ex-wife?

    Which ex-wife?
    He only has one, Gráinne Hayes, an Irish woman. He then married Kirsten Mehr, a German woman who had his children, and they’ve separated, but they’ve not actually divorced.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,101
    HYUFD said:

    I think those odds are about right. If Starmer does go it would likely be in favour of his heir apparent to lead Labour into the next GE. Though of course Starmer could stay PM if Streeting was only elected Labour leader just before the GE campaign. Tactical voting would then be key in deciding whether Farage won that election and became PM or not

    But there is no Keir Apparent...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,164

    rcs1000 said:

    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.

    The YouGov vote shares are a nightmare for bettors, because hundreds of seats are going to be won on very low vote shares, and by very small margins.

    About the only thing you can say with certainty is that - if they hold out- then the SNP will get 40-odd seats, and the LibDems will get around 100, given both those parties highly geographically concentrated vote share.

    For Reform and the Conservatives, a lot depends on how efficient their vote is. If it is moderate efficient, they'll clean up. If it isn't, then I think 150-200 for Reform is probably about right.
    Just to add to this, in key marginals I'd expect tactical voting in favour of Labour and against Reform, to block them, based on current trends and voting behaviour.

    That will tend to ameliorate against Reform vote efficiency. They effectively need apathy/resignation to clean up, and I don't think they have it.
    I think you're right, and it explains some of the messaging from the Reform-adjacent and their useful idiots.

    "Everything is so bad that Nigel can't be any worse" is tosh in many ways, but horribly effective.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,580
    edited January 6
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    250 days? Are there many restaurants and pubs that only open weekdays?

    My current favourite gastropub is 7 days a week and probably does 350-400 per day. They have a completely ludicrous amount of tables including 30 outside, and do 10:00am to 8:30pm except Sundays when it is 12-7. They have the slight advantage of being in a 15-18C building, on the only exit from the one way system on a 300k visitor/year National Trust estate. It is dog walking and gentle hiking central, since park and walk on the 2500 acre estate is common.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,771
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.
    Also, eating out has already become significantly more expensive over the last couple of years. It's not just eat out vs stay in and cook vs fast food, it's eat out vs some other form of entertainment
    Yes, inflation in the sector has already been high in the past few years, now we have increasing minimum wage and business rates that only add to the problem. The NI changes last year made a big difference to businesses operating on unskilled labour.
    Pubs in general are having a hard time. £5-7 a pint is outside many people's budget and if they are just using it to have a chinwag with friends they may take that elsewhere. Cask/craft enthusiasts like me will continue to budget for it, although some probably haven't stopped the mail order subscriptions they started during Covid. Young people are just not drinking like we used to in our 20s and 30s and for others maybe one pub visit a week rather than 2 or 3. I drink with a group of fairly well-heeled pensioners (I suspect they're all better off than me) but it's Wetherspoons every evening for them, with the occasional meal out instead
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,756
    Most of what is going on at the moment is good for Starmer's prospects. He is daily looking more and more like the safe pair of hands. This country is nothing if not conservative with a small c and if ever there has been a case for 'keeping hold of nurse for fear of something worse' it's now. If there was a General Election tomorrow who in their right mind would be voting Farage whatever 'Find out Now' might have you believe?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,580
    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    It would also do something interesting to the North-West passage.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,771

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    “Why laying Nigel Farage is a risky business” - according to his ex-wife?

    Which ex-wife?
    He only has one, Gráinne Hayes, an Irish woman. He then married Kirsten Mehr, a German woman who had his children, and they’ve separated, but they’ve not actually divorced.
    So he's in the happy position of being a Belgian resident, and having German children, no problems travelling round Europe for the Farage family then
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,264
    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    But, they’d get to call Greenland, Red White and Blue Land (that is an actual proposal).
  • eekeek Posts: 32,234
    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    Banks would very quickly need to create a non US based card payment system.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,101

    rcs1000 said:

    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.

    The YouGov vote shares are a nightmare for bettors, because hundreds of seats are going to be won on very low vote shares, and by very small margins.

    About the only thing you can say with certainty is that - if they hold out- then the SNP will get 40-odd seats, and the LibDems will get around 100, given both those parties highly geographically concentrated vote share.

    For Reform and the Conservatives, a lot depends on how efficient their vote is. If it is moderate efficient, they'll clean up. If it isn't, then I think 150-200 for Reform is probably about right.
    Just to add to this, in key marginals I'd expect tactical voting in favour of Labour and against Reform, to block them, based on current trends and voting behaviour.

    That will tend to ameliorate against Reform vote efficiency. They effectively need apathy/resignation to clean up, and I don't think they have it.
    In three years time, the resignation may be that the Tories be given power again. Plenty of Buyer's Remorse out there already for having given Labour a shot. They didn't expect it to be in their back...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,164
    Carnyx said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    After all, it was a temporary COVID fix and that's now long in the past. As with the Triple Lock, the issue is that there was never an exit strategy.

    Besides, I think we all agree that we want an economy where there are fewer jobs but the employment mix is tilted towards higher productivity. What else does "sucking in cheap labour is bad" mean? Hospitality jobs are pretty much defined as low productivity. It's not nice for owners, staff or customers, but that's how it is.
    Your comment made me wonder what would count as a high-productivity hospitality dispenser. Does McDonalds count as hospitality? It's fairly high productivity I assume. And increasingly robotic I believe.

    Which perhaps makes your point, actually.

    Coincidentally the Fast Food Nation chap has published a 25-years-on piece in the Graun.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/jan/06/we-still-live-in-fast-food-nation-eric-schlosser
    Pretty much. From there to Toby/Harvester/Pizza Express, anyway. Yes, I know. Or a very short menu done brilliantly, I guess. (Reducing the options was Gordon Ramsay's usual refrain on Kitchen Nightmares, wasn't it?)

    But the sort of setup where someone cooks from scratch for a table for two and there's attentive service ought to be expensive, if the staff are being paid properly and the business is paying its way in society.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,958
    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,197

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Because price electricity of demand is really high for restaurants and pubs, putting £2 on each main course and you only sell perhaps 70 instead of 100 per day.
    I could believe that about if a single restaurant did it but this affects the whole sector no?

    If all restaurants increase prices by £2/meal (probably less than 5% of total cost), I can't see how it would have such a big change.
    Because the primary decision people are making isn’t between different pubs/restaurants, it’s whether to eat out or stay in and cook.
    Also, eating out has already become significantly more expensive over the last couple of years. It's not just eat out vs stay in and cook vs fast food, it's eat out vs some other form of entertainment
    Yes, inflation in the sector has already been high in the past few years, now we have increasing minimum wage and business rates that only add to the problem. The NI changes last year made a big difference to businesses operating on unskilled labour.
    Pubs in general are having a hard time. £5-7 a pint is outside many people's budget and if they are just using it to have a chinwag with friends they may take that elsewhere. Cask/craft enthusiasts like me will continue to budget for it, although some probably haven't stopped the mail order subscriptions they started during Covid. Young people are just not drinking like we used to in our 20s and 30s and for others maybe one pub visit a week rather than 2 or 3. I drink with a group of fairly well-heeled pensioners (I suspect they're all better off than me) but it's Wetherspoons every evening for them, with the occasional meal out instead
    Yes. The 14p a pint we paid in London when I started drinking (about 1972) now equates with inflation to £1.67. Does the story need any further explanation when drinking other than in pubs can be done at a realistic price?

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,771
    edited January 6

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,101
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    Banks would very quickly need to create a non US based card payment system.
    We should be doing it already.

    Not hard to see the world adopting a "Buy American Last" approach.

    Bit harder to implement a "Buy Danish First" movement. There's only so much bacon you can eat before we all get cancer, which is a tad counter-productive. Although, buying Danish wind turbines would have the added benefit of reaally pissing off Trump...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
    It does start to look as though Rodriguez was behind the snatch of Maduro, for all the official denials.

    That does surprise me. I knew she was amoral, clever and ruthless but I did think one thing she was above all and all the time was anti-American.

    If Trump thinks she will do as he tells her however I suspect he has a surprise in his future.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,101
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    But, they’d get to call Greenland, Red White and Blue Land (that is an actual proposal).
    Then by God, we WILL cover it in the Union flag.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,795
    rkrkrk said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    It does rather look like small business rates could become a big issue in April.

    One chef/publican on LBC yesterday, saying that rates will be doubling with the recently announced changes.

    https://x.com/lbc/status/2008305413012205901

    Tom Kerridge. Michelin starred chef. Also a TV and radio personality.

    Very pro labour in the run up to the 24 election.

    He’s at the FO stage of FAFO.
    That’s a Rishi time bomb that everyone forgot to defuse and given how Reeves seems to be looking at individual pots of tax, one that wasn’t an easy fix.

    I will go back to my recurring statement 3p should have been put on income tax back in November 2024.
    A more gradual rise might be easier to stomach, but I dont see why we should continue to have low rates for hospitality.

    £50k extra tax bill could be an extra £2/main meal if you are open 250 days a year and have 100 meals served each day. Maybe my assumptions are way off but doesn't seem impossible to swallow...
    Why shouldn’t we have low rates.

    We give all sorts of incentives, subsidies, tax reliefs, for various industries. Why not hospitality which disproportionately employs a larger number of younger people.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,197
    Kemi Badenoch for next PM at 5%, as in the header is, IMO, underpriced.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,912
    edited January 6

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    He thinks he won the 2020 election and that taking Ivermectin prevented Covid. He also thinks battery powered boats sink under their own weight. He also believes Mar-a-lago is the most expensive and exclusive property in the history of the world.

    I'm thinking your questions put a false dichotomy.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 27,247
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    Banks would very quickly need to create a non US based card payment system.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacs

    Although I assume it uses some American bits that it doesn't know about until they go downl
  • StarryStarry Posts: 131
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    But, they’d get to call Greenland, Red White and Blue Land (that is an actual proposal).
    Need to give them representation then. Roll on another Democrat senator and rep.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,444

    So… is Trump delusional? Stupid?

    Yes
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,958

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
    That’s not what the Venezuelan government is saying. That’s not what Venezuelans are saying.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,958
    ydoethur said:

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
    It does start to look as though Rodriguez was behind the snatch of Maduro, for all the official denials.

    That does surprise me. I knew she was amoral, clever and ruthless but I did think one thing she was above all and all the time was anti-American.

    If Trump thinks she will do as he tells her however I suspect he has a surprise in his future.
    There is speculation to that effect, but I don’t see any actual evidence.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,004

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    If you take Keir Starmer's analysis of the political situation at face value, doesn't he have a duty to step down instead of squatting in Downing Street as the most unpopular PM in polling history while waiting for Reform to "tear this country apart"?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,958
    Starry said:

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    But, they’d get to call Greenland, Red White and Blue Land (that is an actual proposal).
    Need to give them representation then. Roll on another Democrat senator and rep.
    Greenland has less than a tenth of the population of Wyoming, the smallest US state by population.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,756
    ydoethur said:

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
    It does start to look as though Rodriguez was behind the snatch of Maduro, for all the official denials.

    That does surprise me. I knew she was amoral, clever and ruthless but I did think one thing she was above all and all the time was anti-American.

    If Trump thinks she will do as he tells her however I suspect he has a surprise in his future.
    They BBC did a piece on her yesterday and it was quite impressive though she seems a surprising bedfellow of Trump. A dyed-in- the -wool communist who believed the poor were being exploited and whose father was executed for his beliefs
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,580
    edited January 6
    ..

    (Not absolutely sure I am correct)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,473
    Annexing Greenland would make the USA bigger on a map though, even more so on a Mercator projection.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,696
    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    I think the EU and UK need to make clear, privately, the consequences of annexing Greenland, for example:

    - Closing all US bases on European soil. This would lose the US more in terms of military projection than it would gain from getting Greenland where they have large bases.

    - The end of NATO and it's replacement with a ETO. Turkey is welcome to remain a part of the new organisation.

    - Nuclear umbrella covers all of ETO. Or at least the UK and EU.

    As the US has says, it's obvious the defending Greenland militarily is likely a non starter. So focus on other consequences that are in our control.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,580

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    If you take Keir Starmer's analysis of the political situation at face value, doesn't he have a duty to step down instead of squatting in Downing Street as the most unpopular PM in polling history while waiting for Reform to "tear this country apart"?
    Which previous Prime Ministers has that not been said of?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,197

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    If you take a bit of time to look at that YouGov 'league table' and take in not the figures but the closeness of the spread, the various vulnerabilities of the parties and the unknowns of the future, a picture of sorts emerges.

    It is very like (don't I know it) when at the turn of the year Arsenal are 6 or 8 points ahead and it is all theirs to lose. (Just like now, but it's groundhog day stuff).

    And the picture which emerges is this: I am not sure who will be top in May, probably Man City or Liverpool but it won't be Villa or Forest or Newcastle. But if you are sure it will be Arsenal you are delusional.

    Translation: If you look at those figures from planet Mars, any of the five can win the GE. But actually Greens and LDs won't. And probably Reform won't either. Man City or Liverpool (Tory and Labour) probably will.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,004
    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    I think the EU and UK need to make clear, privately, the consequences of annexing Greenland, for example:

    - Closing all US bases on European soil. This would lose the US more in terms of military projection than it would gain from getting Greenland where they have large bases.

    - The end of NATO and it's replacement with a ETO. Turkey is welcome to remain a part of the new organisation.

    - Nuclear umbrella covers all of ETO. Or at least the UK and EU.

    As the US has says, it's obvious the defending Greenland militarily is likely a non starter. So focus on other consequences that are in our control.
    Do you really think Poland would send the Americans home over Greenland?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,771

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
    That’s not what the Venezuelan government is saying. That’s not what Venezuelans are saying.
    Of course not
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,115
    Pulpstar said:

    Annexing Greenland would make the USA bigger on a map though, even more so on a Mercator projection.

    Greenland isn’t as big as most maps make it look, although it would be the largest US State, around 20% bigger than Alaska. It would make the US definitely the 2nd largest country by area, ahead of Canada and China.

    I still don’t think it will happen though, and if it does it will be a purchase with consent of the population rather than a hostile military takeover.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,756
    edited January 6
    algarkirk said:

    Kemi Badenoch for next PM at 5%, as in the header is, IMO, underpriced.

    I like to hear at least one story about a possible PM that is slightly endearing. Like Blair was in. a band. Starmer was a human rights lawyer. Thatcher in private was very thoughtful and did hospital visiting at Christmas. Cameron had a disabled child and was an excellent father. Brown.....there were lots of him being a special human being. Ed Davey the same......

    With Badenoch l've heard nothing and neither do I expect to.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,528

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    Worth saying that Truss's worst score with YouGov 19%.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,696

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    I think the EU and UK need to make clear, privately, the consequences of annexing Greenland, for example:

    - Closing all US bases on European soil. This would lose the US more in terms of military projection than it would gain from getting Greenland where they have large bases.

    - The end of NATO and it's replacement with a ETO. Turkey is welcome to remain a part of the new organisation.

    - Nuclear umbrella covers all of ETO. Or at least the UK and EU.

    As the US has says, it's obvious the defending Greenland militarily is likely a non starter. So focus on other consequences that are in our control.
    Do you really think Poland would send the Americans home over Greenland?
    Do you really think the US would help to defend Poland?

    At a certain point you need to recognise that having US troops in Europe is a bigger threat than it is a benefit. The point at which the US takes European territory by force is a good time to enforce that.

    In any case, we don't need to close every base to hurt the US.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,004
    MattW said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    If you take Keir Starmer's analysis of the political situation at face value, doesn't he have a duty to step down instead of squatting in Downing Street as the most unpopular PM in polling history while waiting for Reform to "tear this country apart"?
    Which previous Prime Ministers has that not been said of?
    Starmer is the one saying that Reform are different and that we are in "the fight of our lives" to stop this dangerous new political force. If he genuinely believes that, he really should let someone with some political skills take over, because he's not up to it.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 15,125
    tlg86 said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    Worth saying that Truss's worst score with YouGov 19%.
    Yeah, but she didn't have a whole lot of time to work on it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,264
    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
    It does start to look as though Rodriguez was behind the snatch of Maduro, for all the official denials.

    That does surprise me. I knew she was amoral, clever and ruthless but I did think one thing she was above all and all the time was anti-American.

    If Trump thinks she will do as he tells her however I suspect he has a surprise in his future.
    They BBC did a piece on her yesterday and it was quite impressive though she seems a surprising bedfellow of Trump. A dyed-in- the -wool communist who believed the poor were being exploited and whose father was executed for his beliefs
    These are my principles.

    If you don’t like them, I have others.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,580
    An interesting possible straw in the wind.

    One of Trump co-conspirators in trying to corrupt the 2021 Election, Tina Peters, is in prison for 9 years on State Charges - not pardonable by the President. Trump has been threatening Colorado with cancelling funding, as he does, and was told to p*ss off.

    He cancelled funding for various projects, including a supply of non polluted water to a particular city, and now Congress will overrule his veto, which requires support form both sides.

    https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/05/congress/house-will-vote-thursday-to-override-trump-veto-of-two-gop-backed-bills-00711322

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,751

    rcs1000 said:

    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.

    The YouGov vote shares are a nightmare for bettors, because hundreds of seats are going to be won on very low vote shares, and by very small margins.

    About the only thing you can say with certainty is that - if they hold out- then the SNP will get 40-odd seats, and the LibDems will get around 100, given both those parties highly geographically concentrated vote share.

    For Reform and the Conservatives, a lot depends on how efficient their vote is. If it is moderate efficient, they'll clean up. If it isn't, then I think 150-200 for Reform is probably about right.
    Yes, I think so - but I'm not quite as bullish on the LDs as you are.
    I expect the Lib Dem seat total to stay within 10 seats of their current seat total, possibly much less change than that. Essentially they will be bystanders at the next election.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,795

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    If you take Keir Starmer's analysis of the political situation at face value, doesn't he have a duty to step down instead of squatting in Downing Street as the most unpopular PM in polling history while waiting for Reform to "tear this country apart"?
    It’s different when it’s him !
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,958

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    No. There's a Venezuelan government, and it will do what it's told
    That’s not what the Venezuelan government is saying. That’s not what Venezuelans are saying.
    Of course not
    The Venezuelan regime is arresting people supporting the US and the public are scared to go on anti-Maduro demonstrations. If Trump controls Venezuela, then is that what he wants to happen?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,771
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Annexing Greenland would make the USA bigger on a map though, even more so on a Mercator projection.

    Greenland isn’t as big as most maps make it look, although it would be the largest US State, around 20% bigger than Alaska. It would make the US definitely the 2nd largest country by area, ahead of Canada and China.

    I still don’t think it will happen though, and if it does it will be a purchase with consent of the population rather than a hostile military takeover.
    And it will probably be in the guise of independence and a "free association" status.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 85,031
    .

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    Banks would very quickly need to create a non US based card payment system.
    We should be doing it already.

    Not hard to see the world adopting a "Buy American Last" approach.

    Bit harder to implement a "Buy Danish First" movement. There's only so much bacon you can eat before we all get cancer, which is a tad counter-productive. Although, buying Danish wind turbines would have the added benefit of reaally pissing off Trump...
    Denmark exports all manner of stuff.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,519
    edited January 6

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    I think the EU and UK need to make clear, privately, the consequences of annexing Greenland, for example:

    - Closing all US bases on European soil. This would lose the US more in terms of military projection than it would gain from getting Greenland where they have large bases.

    - The end of NATO and it's replacement with a ETO. Turkey is welcome to remain a part of the new organisation.

    - Nuclear umbrella covers all of ETO. Or at least the UK and EU.

    As the US has says, it's obvious the defending Greenland militarily is likely a non starter. So focus on other consequences that are in our control.
    Do you really think Poland would send the Americans home over Greenland?
    Tell me you don’t know any Poles without telling me you don’t know any Poles.

    The Poles know all about the consequences of appeasement and a foreign power occupying countries.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,751

    Trump did an interview and, when asked who is in charge of Venezuela, said “me”. But he clearly isn’t, and Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are going around saying that the Venezuelan government is still there. So… is Trump delusional? Stupid? What?

    Yes all of that.

    It's hard, because he's the President of the United States, and so we implicitly make certain assumptions, but we need to let go of the Rational Trump Delusion. He will say things because they sound nice to him in the moment, not because they're part of a strategy or a plan, let alone a rational one to advance American interests.

    Insofar as he exhibits any degree of rational behaviour it will be in pursuit of his three greatest priorities: self-enrichment, self-aggrandisement and self-preservation.

    He wants money. He wants people to kowtow to him. He wants people to forget about the Epstein Files.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,197
    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    I think the EU and UK need to make clear, privately, the consequences of annexing Greenland, for example:

    - Closing all US bases on European soil. This would lose the US more in terms of military projection than it would gain from getting Greenland where they have large bases.

    - The end of NATO and it's replacement with a ETO. Turkey is welcome to remain a part of the new organisation.

    - Nuclear umbrella covers all of ETO. Or at least the UK and EU.

    As the US has says, it's obvious the defending Greenland militarily is likely a non starter. So focus on other consequences that are in our control.
    All true of course. But we cannot know, by definition, what has been said privately by the EU and the UK. The moment anything is known it isn't private. We can safely assume that a vast amount is being both said and done of which we know nothing.

    We can of course try to infer the private from what is public in respect of actions and words.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,865

    rcs1000 said:

    I don't think Reform are polling well enough or broadly enough across a wide enough range of issues, or that Nigel Farage is favourable enough, for them to win.

    They are in the high 20s mid-term (which would undoubtedly be less following a GE campaign) and their support is strong on immigration/cultural issues, but they still haven't convinced on the economy. On top, Farage is better than he was but still very much marmite.

    It sings to me of them getting c.150 seats, but not winning.

    The YouGov vote shares are a nightmare for bettors, because hundreds of seats are going to be won on very low vote shares, and by very small margins.

    About the only thing you can say with certainty is that - if they hold out- then the SNP will get 40-odd seats, and the LibDems will get around 100, given both those parties highly geographically concentrated vote share.

    For Reform and the Conservatives, a lot depends on how efficient their vote is. If it is moderate efficient, they'll clean up. If it isn't, then I think 150-200 for Reform is probably about right.
    Yes, I think so - but I'm not quite as bullish on the LDs as you are.
    I expect the Lib Dem seat total to stay within 10 seats of their current seat total, possibly much less change than that. Essentially they will be bystanders at the next election.
    There are 20 seats where the Lib Dems came second to the Conservatives in 2024, according to Google AI. These would be the obvious targets for them if the Conservatives fall back further relative to 2024, losing votes to Reform. There are some others where Labour won last time that might be in play but overall the upside is limited barring Cleggasm II.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,915
    edited January 6
    Ratters said:

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    I think the EU and UK need to make clear, privately, the consequences of annexing Greenland, for example:

    - Closing all US bases on European soil. This would lose the US more in terms of military projection than it would gain from getting Greenland where they have large bases.

    - The end of NATO and it's replacement with a ETO. Turkey is welcome to remain a part of the new organisation.

    - Nuclear umbrella covers all of ETO. Or at least the UK and EU.

    As the US has says, it's obvious the defending Greenland militarily is likely a non starter. So focus on other consequences that are in our control.
    Do you really think Poland would send the Americans home over Greenland?
    Do you really think the US would help to defend Poland?

    At a certain point you need to recognise that having US troops in Europe is a bigger threat than it is a benefit. The point at which the US takes European territory by force is a good time to enforce that.

    In any case, we don't need to close every base to hurt the US.
    As I keep repeating. Cut off US access to the data from Fylingdales. It is still a key part of their ballistic missile early warning system along with Thule and Clear, but is an RAF station. It would seem particularly apt given Thule is in Greenland.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,004

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DanielKorski

    Annexing Greenland would probably

    ➖Destroy NATO
    ➖Create a EU-US trade war
    ➖Compel the US to militarily rule a reluctant Greenlandic population
    ➖Encourage a Russian attack on the Baltics
    ➖Destroy a range of US commercial interests: from the lock-out of (all/some) US defence, energy and tech companies as well as investors from EU markets
    ➖Create a political backlash in the US probably affecting the midterms

    Fees like a long list of bad things. Are the supposed benefits really so great that they outweigh all those downsides?

    https://x.com/DanielKorski/status/2007925133537653196?s=20

    I think the EU and UK need to make clear, privately, the consequences of annexing Greenland, for example:

    - Closing all US bases on European soil. This would lose the US more in terms of military projection than it would gain from getting Greenland where they have large bases.

    - The end of NATO and it's replacement with a ETO. Turkey is welcome to remain a part of the new organisation.

    - Nuclear umbrella covers all of ETO. Or at least the UK and EU.

    As the US has says, it's obvious the defending Greenland militarily is likely a non starter. So focus on other consequences that are in our control.
    Do you really think Poland would send the Americans home over Greenland?
    Tell me you don’t know any Poles without telling me you don’t know any Poles.

    The Poles know all about the consequences of appeasement and a foreign power occupying them.
    They also have quite strong feelings about how much a security guarantee from Britain and France is worth.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,756

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    If you take Keir Starmer's analysis of the political situation at face value, doesn't he have a duty to step down instead of squatting in Downing Street as the most unpopular PM in polling history while waiting for Reform to "tear this country apart"?
    Could we have a 'Trolls Corner'?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,716
    Roger said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 26%(+1),
    CON 19%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    LDEM 16%(+1),
    GRN 15%(nc)

    Note that Labour on 17% matches their lowest (previously reached in October), but this is the first time since the election we've had them behind the Tories (now that it necessarily means much when they are both well behind Reform).


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2008420338640519413

    If you take Keir Starmer's analysis of the political situation at face value, doesn't he have a duty to step down instead of squatting in Downing Street as the most unpopular PM in polling history while waiting for Reform to "tear this country apart"?
    Could we have a 'Trolls Corner'?
    Good morning

    You could be first then !!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.