Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
If he did it there would no longer be 73% opposition to it.
Rumours that Iranian authorities have bought from China powerful radio transmitter weapons to block signals from satellite phones and Starlink terminals, that protestors were using to get news out of the country.
Surely they would make very tempting targets for the Orange One to splat.
It's not like an enormously powerful radio transmitter will be hard to find, given the radio signals emitting from it, nor yet do they work well from underground bunkers of any substance, so they should present a pretty soft target.
Also, Starlink uses an actively steered phased arrays. It is very hard to jam unless the jammer is above the dish.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
If he did it there would no longer be 73% opposition to it.
Only 8% are in favour, even if that ticked up a bit he would still almost certainly be impeached and convicted, already Republican Senators from Rand Paul to Susan Collins and even former Senate Leader Mitch McConnell have joined all the Democrats in Congress to tell Trump not to invade Greenland
Rumours that Iranian authorities have bought from China powerful radio transmitter weapons to block signals from satellite phones and Starlink terminals, that protestors were using to get news out of the country.
Surely they would make very tempting targets for the Orange One to splat.
It's not like an enormously powerful radio transmitter will be hard to find, given the radio signals emitting from it, nor yet do they work well from underground bunkers of any substance, so they should present a pretty soft target.
You’d think they’d stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. An RF jammer aimed at satellite phones isn’t going going to be a particularly subtle device, and you wouldn’t want to be standing too close to it!
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
If he did it there would no longer be 73% opposition to it.
Only 8% are in favour, even if that ticked up a bit he would still almost certainly be impeached and convicted, already Republican Senators from Rand Paul to Susan Collins and even former Senate Leader Mitch McConnell have joined all the Democrats in Congress to tell Trump not to invade Greenland
That's not how it works. It doesn't tick up a bit, the entire movement falls in line.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
Nice Del Amitri reference.
I picked up several podcast and Youtube commentator reviews; my usual for decades has been R4 "The Correspondents Look Ahead", which I used to record on cassette to relisten before the next one.
Probably the best from for me were Mallen Baker, Anne Applebaum and I think Legal Eagle.
I think we will see an upswing in podcasts that are 30 minutes rather than an hour.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
If he did it there would no longer be 73% opposition to it.
Only 8% are in favour, even if that ticked up a bit he would still almost certainly be impeached and convicted, already Republican Senators from Rand Paul to Susan Collins and even former Senate Leader Mitch McConnell have joined all the Democrats in Congress to tell Trump not to invade Greenland
That's not how it works. It doesn't tick up a bit, the entire movement falls in line.
Rubbish, if even half of REPUBLICANS oppose an invasion of Greenland in that poll the entire movement has NOT fallen into line.
Trump has never done something before he has not had at least more than half of Republicans in favour of
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Where are we on the State competitive gerrymander tournament?
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
“Homicide in London has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, new figures released by the Metropolitan Police show.
“The force said 97 homicides were recorded in 2025, the lowest figure since 2014, at a rate of 1.1 per 100,000 people, lower than New York (2.8), Berlin (3.2) and Milan (1.6).”
Go Sadiq!
Every columnist from the Times up to the Knappers Gazette will be tapping out their favoured theory to explain London's falling murder rate, and there are so many to choose from – statistical noise; less air pollution; Albanian takeover of the drugs trade from machete-wielding postcode gangs; restrictions on knife sales; stop and search; face recognition cameras; no doubt even Brexit.
Of course the real reason is that Keir Starmer forced all schools to show Adolescence.
You forgot Britain's productivity crisis. Murderers spending too much time on social media these days
In order to commit a murder, you need to fill out 17 separate, contradictory forms. That require paid, professional assistance to navigate. Murder is simply too complex and expensive.
Going back to the predictions, can we have a booby prize for the least accurate predictor, please. IIRC I think I deserve that for the year just finished!
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenland, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
I guess (geo)politics is one of those things that either barely affects you or it affects you *A LOT*.
I've been thinking about the AI nude images and I don't see how democracy in its current form survives the technology. It's arguably a bigger threat than Russia. I think that technology is coming for a lot of women in 2026 - so not many people on PB.com, but we will likely notice the backlash.
Going back to the predictions, can we have a booby prize for the least accurate predictor, please. IIRC I think I deserve that for the year just finished!
If Starmer is negotiating it, it will make the Chagos deal look cheap.
And good luck in binding a future Parliament to such payments, whether run by Farage or not.
Why would Farage choose to reimpose costs on UK exporters? His prerogative to date is that of a harlot. That changes (at least somewhat) when he becomes prime minister.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
I am always jaw droppingly shocked at the obscene amount of money spent by both the Democrat and the Republican candidates during a Presidential campaign.
I expect all the Khan haters will be rushing to congratulate the mayor and the Met for their patient work on violent crime, which means that London is now proportionately safer than other UK cities and of course an order of magnitude safer than US cities. As a London dweller I have never felt unsafe here. It's sad to see plastic patriots on the right trashing our great capital city in pursuit of their own political agenda. Well done Sadiq.
Citation for London being 'proportionately safer than other UK cities'? I couldn't see that claim in the article.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
I am always jaw droppingly shocked at the obscene amount of money spent by both the Democrat and the Republican candidates during a Presidential campaign.
Agree; same applies to their other elections too. American 'democracy' seems to be more of a cesspit than Latin American. (Some Latin American anyway. Seems to vary from time to time.)
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
I am always jaw droppingly shocked at the obscene amount of money spent by both the Democrat and the Republican candidates during a Presidential campaign.
Yes they spend stupid amounts of money, and a significant amount of it goes on negative attack ads rather than trying to sell a positive vision for the country.
IIRC the Harris campaign raised $1.4bn in three months, Trump raised less but still close to $1bn.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
No evidence the military would back Trump either if 92% of Americans do not favour an invasion of Greenland, even in the unlikely event Congress did not impeach and convict him
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
And that was nothing to do with the election itself - just the result.
Which was coalition forming in the style that happens in many countries. And the coalition was arrived at much faster than quite a few countries manage on a regular basis.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
It's injustice that affects us most and the last year was one where it seemed to be either closer to us or more obvious than it has been for the last several years. Trumps behaviour has drawn attention to it in that it shows what arbitrary justice and might is right looks like
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
I don't think Ireland, with a fully proportional system takes much longer, does it?
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
And that was nothing to do with the election itself - just the result.
Which was coalition forming in the style that happens in many countries. And the coalition was arrived at much faster than quite a few countries manage on a regular basis.
Yes, apart from a few rural seats we get all the results within 12 hours of the close of polls, and the change of power can happen the same day.
The contrast with the US elections, is stark, especially with counting that can take weeks in some States, and little incentive to make the process more efficient. The one exception is Florida, where they had their pants pulled down in 2000 and decided they didn’t want to be a laughing stock in the Supreme Court again, so now they finish the count overnight.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
And that was nothing to do with the election itself - just the result.
Which was coalition forming in the style that happens in many countries. And the coalition was arrived at much faster than quite a few countries manage on a regular basis.
IIRC the Feb 1974 result was to hand the morning after, as usual. Actually forming a Government, or at least deciding on the incoming PM, took about a week.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
I don't think Ireland, with a fully proportional system takes much longer, does it?
Generally speaking Ireland takes two days to get most of the count completed, though everyone has a pretty good idea of the overall result by the first lunchtime because the party workers observing the count (called tallymen) come up with very accurate tallies much more quickly. This is probably why they don't simply double/triple the number of counters in order to get the count completed in one day.
It took quite a long time after the last election to finalise the coalition deal, nearly two months. I think in the end they only felt the need to get it done so that a government was in place before Trump was inaugurated.
Ireland's system is STV, which is slower to count than a simple, directly proportional system, would be.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
I would only accept a payoff for accepting US sovereignty if I could take the money and emigrate immediately.
No amount of money would reconcile me to living under the jurisdiction of Trump's FBI and ICE.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
I don't think Ireland, with a fully proportional system takes much longer, does it?
Generally speaking Ireland takes two days to get most of the count completed, though everyone has a pretty good idea of the overall result by the first lunchtime because the party workers observing the count (called tallymen) come up with very accurate tallies much more quickly. This is probably why they don't simply double/triple the number of counters in order to get the count completed in one day.
It took quite a long time after the last election to finalise the coalition deal, nearly two months. I think in the end they only felt the need to get it done so that a government was in place before Trump was inaugurated.
Ireland's system is STV, which is slower to count than a simple, directly proportional system, would be.
Also, I get the impression that the counts in Ireland are taking longer because politics in Ireland is also becoming more fractured, so there are more candidates and it takes more rounds of transfers to complete the count.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
I don't think Ireland, with a fully proportional system takes much longer, does it?
Generally speaking Ireland takes two days to get most of the count completed, though everyone has a pretty good idea of the overall result by the first lunchtime because the party workers observing the count (called tallymen) come up with very accurate tallies much more quickly. This is probably why they don't simply double/triple the number of counters in order to get the count completed in one day.
It took quite a long time after the last election to finalise the coalition deal, nearly two months. I think in the end they only felt the need to get it done so that a government was in place before Trump was inaugurated.
Ireland's system is STV, which is slower to count than a simple, directly proportional system, would be.
The Score election result is available, except for some 'fine tuning' re the last one or two regional members quite quickly.
On Government forming, Belgium holds the record for time taken, doesn't it?
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Loathe as I am to disagree with a prediction competition top ten placer... I don't think Trump is reading the polling. Or, maybe he is obsessively reading the polling, but he doesn't believe in it. He's convinced it's all fake.
Trump is not a rational person. There are reports that he has asked the US military to draw up Greenland invasion plans.
I expect all the Khan haters will be rushing to congratulate the mayor and the Met for their patient work on violent crime, which means that London is now proportionately safer than other UK cities and of course an order of magnitude safer than US cities. As a London dweller I have never felt unsafe here. It's sad to see plastic patriots on the right trashing our great capital city in pursuit of their own political agenda. Well done Sadiq.
Citation for London being 'proportionately safer than other UK cities'? I couldn't see that claim in the article.
The article includes a statement from Khan saying "the evidence showed that violent crime rates are proportionately lower in London than in any other UK city". So there is a claim but no citation of the evidence.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia last year and the Polish presidential election and the mid terms in Argentina. In the UK we had the English county council elections and a few unitary council elections.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand and Brazilian elections and Russian legislative elections. Though more elections in the UK in London, Scotland, Wales, big English cities and delayed English county elections and some unitary councils
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
No evidence the military would back Trump either if 92% of Americans do not favour an invasion of Greenland, even in the unlikely event Congress did not impeach and convict him
We so far have no evidence of the military not backing Trump. So wait and see. On the general point of support for Trumpian action, a country that has become a bit free and easy about random state backed shootings and about undermining opposition with slanderous talk of traitors is a country where it is harder to say No.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Loathe as I am to disagree with a prediction competition top ten placer... I don't think Trump is reading the polling. Or, maybe he is obsessively reading the polling, but he doesn't believe in it. He's convinced it's all fake.
Trump is not a rational person. There are reports that he has asked the US military to draw up Greenland invasion plans.
He may not be but you can be sure members of Congress are.
Trump may not have to run for re election but most of them will have to and given the overwhelming polling opposition to a US invasion of Greenland even from Republican voters he would inevitably be impeached and likely convicted if he tried it.
As Nick P states Trump is just using an invasion floating as an outrageous move to try and get more consensus for a more realistic option, the US buying Greenland for billions and billions of dollars. Most Republican voters do back that even if still not the median US voter.
Trump isn't stupid, this is all tactics from the classic Trump dealmaking playbook
I expect all the Khan haters will be rushing to congratulate the mayor and the Met for their patient work on violent crime, which means that London is now proportionately safer than other UK cities and of course an order of magnitude safer than US cities. As a London dweller I have never felt unsafe here. It's sad to see plastic patriots on the right trashing our great capital city in pursuit of their own political agenda. Well done Sadiq.
Citation for London being 'proportionately safer than other UK cities'? I couldn't see that claim in the article.
The article includes a statement from Khan saying "the evidence showed that violent crime rates are proportionately lower in London than in any other UK city". So there is a claim but no citation of the evidence.
Slightly doubtful about their methodology, but these people put London in the upper half of UK cities. Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford do worse. Deprivation is higher in those cities so it figures.
I expect all the Khan haters will be rushing to congratulate the mayor and the Met for their patient work on violent crime, which means that London is now proportionately safer than other UK cities and of course an order of magnitude safer than US cities. As a London dweller I have never felt unsafe here. It's sad to see plastic patriots on the right trashing our great capital city in pursuit of their own political agenda. Well done Sadiq.
Citation for London being 'proportionately safer than other UK cities'? I couldn't see that claim in the article.
The article includes a statement from Khan saying "the evidence showed that violent crime rates are proportionately lower in London than in any other UK city". So there is a claim but no citation of the evidence.
I'd love to compare Bath, or St Davds, for instance.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A really interesting post, for which many thanks.
2024 was always going to be a hard act to follow for this site - having both a UK General Election and a US Presidential election in the same year is basically two trips to the buffet on the same day and it's fair to say many on here didn't like either result. A world with Sunak as Prime Minister and Harris as President would be a very different place, you'd imagine.
As to the day-to-day impact of politics, what happens locally affects me more than what happens nationally in the short term (the longer term is different). We have in 2026 local elections here in London and that will have an impact even though I imagine barely a third of those who can vote will vote.
We are all political or politics enthusiasts - we wouldn't be here otherwise. Sometimes, we like to see change before it manifests more broadly and spot trends before they become obvious -the betting part of the site plays to that.
We all have our agendas, our teams and our flags and the debates/arguments reflect those. Too often we revisit old battles simply because we can but as the annual prediction contest shows, trying to read the runes of the future - well, I'd have more chance of going through the card at Lingfield this afternoon.
A world with Sunak as PM still and Harris as US President would have been better for Ukraine, better for the UK economy and business owners, wealthy pensioners and property owners and farmers, better for woke in the US, worse for Putin and Netanyahu, worse for UK train drivers and GPs and those claiming lots of welfare and better for the global free market which would still be largely tariff free and better for tackling climate change. It would have been good for trans in the US, not so good for trans in the UK.
It would also have been a better world for those who like slick and articulate leaders, which Sunak and Harris were clearly more than Starmer and Trump. Most of the white working class and lower middle class in both nations though clearly rejected Sunak and Harris for what they thought would be straightforward common sense with Starmer and Trump
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
No evidence the military would back Trump either if 92% of Americans do not favour an invasion of Greenland, even in the unlikely event Congress did not impeach and convict him
We so far have no evidence of the military not backing Trump. So wait and see. On the general point of support for Trumpian action, a country that has become a bit free and easy about random state backed shootings and about undermining opposition with slanderous talk of traitors is a country where it is harder to say No.
The military take an oath to the President but also to the Constitution.
If Trump ordered an invasion of Greenland at the same time as Congress impeached him (which he won't), the military would wait for the outcome of Trump's trial in the US Senate
Thanks Ben. This is a great and highly prestigious competition. Well done Driver and the leaderboarders. I've slipped from a solid Q1 last year into Mr Average territory. Disappointed with that. There will have to be a review on myself carried out by myself. I've got questions to answer about my answers to the questions.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
No evidence the military would back Trump either if 92% of Americans do not favour an invasion of Greenland, even in the unlikely event Congress did not impeach and convict him
We so far have no evidence of the military not backing Trump. So wait and see. On the general point of support for Trumpian action, a country that has become a bit free and easy about random state backed shootings and about undermining opposition with slanderous talk of traitors is a country where it is harder to say No.
I think we had the Admiral originally in command of the fleet in the Caribbean who resigned early. I think it's credible to infer that this was because they disagreed with the commands they were given, and/or thought they were illegal.
That's some distance from Trump being unable to find a flag officer willing to follow his commands, but I think it shows that there is the potential for resistance within the military chain of command, particularly to something as extreme as attacking a NATO ally.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A really interesting post, for which many thanks.
2024 was always going to be a hard act to follow for this site - having both a UK General Election and a US Presidential election in the same year is basically two trips to the buffet on the same day and it's fair to say many on here didn't like either result. A world with Sunak as Prime Minister and Harris as President would be a very different place, you'd imagine.
As to the day-to-day impact of politics, what happens locally affects me more than what happens nationally in the short term (the longer term is different). We have in 2026 local elections here in London and that will have an impact even though I imagine barely a third of those who can vote will vote.
We are all political or politics enthusiasts - we wouldn't be here otherwise. Sometimes, we like to see change before it manifests more broadly and spot trends before they become obvious -the betting part of the site plays to that.
We all have our agendas, our teams and our flags and the debates/arguments reflect those. Too often we revisit old battles simply because we can but as the annual prediction contest shows, trying to read the runes of the future - well, I'd have more chance of going through the card at Lingfield this afternoon.
A world with Sunak as PM still and Harris as US President would have been better for Ukraine, better for the UK economy and business owners, wealthy pensioners and property owners and farmers, better for woke in the US, worse for Putin and Netanyahu, worse for UK train drivers and GPs and those claiming lots of welfare and better for the global free market which would still be largely tariff free and better for tackling climate change. It would have been good for trans in the US, not so good for trans in the UK.
It would also have been a better world for those who like slick and articulate leaders, which Sunak and Harris were clearly more than Starmer and Trump. Most of the white working class and lower middle class in both nations though clearly rejected Sunak and Harris for what they thought would be straightforward common sense with Starmer and Trump
Ironically had Harris won the GOP would likely be heading for victory in the midterms in November and have a chance of regaining the Presidency in 2028 and Cuomo might have won the NYC Mayoralty not Mamdani.
Trump's re election may longer term end up having been better for the Democrats than the Republicans and conservatives as he cannot run again but is taking the GOP down with him and his now strongly negative approval rating.
The world might have breathed a sigh of relief if Harris had beaten Trump and say Rubio or Haley won in 2028 though
I expect all the Khan haters will be rushing to congratulate the mayor and the Met for their patient work on violent crime, which means that London is now proportionately safer than other UK cities and of course an order of magnitude safer than US cities. As a London dweller I have never felt unsafe here. It's sad to see plastic patriots on the right trashing our great capital city in pursuit of their own political agenda. Well done Sadiq.
Citation for London being 'proportionately safer than other UK cities'? I couldn't see that claim in the article.
The article includes a statement from Khan saying "the evidence showed that violent crime rates are proportionately lower in London than in any other UK city". So there is a claim but no citation of the evidence.
I'd love to compare Bath, or St Davds, for instance.
Yeah I'd judge it implausible that London is literally safer than any other city. However, I can believe that it may perform better than other large cities on some metrics.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
I would only accept a payoff for accepting US sovereignty if I could take the money and emigrate immediately.
No amount of money would reconcile me to living under the jurisdiction of Trump's FBI and ICE.
I get the impression that Greenlanders have come to a comfortable arrangement despite justified grumbles about previously bad and currently merely patronising treatment by Denmark.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
I would only accept a payoff for accepting US sovereignty if I could take the money and emigrate immediately.
No amount of money would reconcile me to living under the jurisdiction of Trump's FBI and ICE.
Not sure if Greenlanders have the right to live in the EU, they will be Danish citizens but Greenland isn't in the EU.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
No evidence the military would back Trump either if 92% of Americans do not favour an invasion of Greenland, even in the unlikely event Congress did not impeach and convict him
We so far have no evidence of the military not backing Trump. So wait and see. On the general point of support for Trumpian action, a country that has become a bit free and easy about random state backed shootings and about undermining opposition with slanderous talk of traitors is a country where it is harder to say No.
The military take an oath to the President but also to the Constitution.
If Trump ordered an invasion of Greenland at the same time as Congress impeached him (which he won't), the military would wait for the outcome of Trump's trial in the US Senate
Imagine if Keir Starmer set the legal dogs on Andrew Bailey for not slashing interest rates. If that didn't lead to his departure (Starmer, I mean) it'd indicate we were well down the path from liberal democracy to authoritarianism, wouldn't it?
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenland, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
Not everybody si desperate for money, they will tell the yanks to GTF
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
I would only accept a payoff for accepting US sovereignty if I could take the money and emigrate immediately.
No amount of money would reconcile me to living under the jurisdiction of Trump's FBI and ICE.
Not sure if Greenlanders have the right to live in the EU, they will be Danish citizens but Greenland isn't in the EU.
Greenlanders have EU citizenship. Greenland's formal status is EU overseas territory.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A really interesting post, for which many thanks.
2024 was always going to be a hard act to follow for this site - having both a UK General Election and a US Presidential election in the same year is basically two trips to the buffet on the same day and it's fair to say many on here didn't like either result. A world with Sunak as Prime Minister and Harris as President would be a very different place, you'd imagine.
As to the day-to-day impact of politics, what happens locally affects me more than what happens nationally in the short term (the longer term is different). We have in 2026 local elections here in London and that will have an impact even though I imagine barely a third of those who can vote will vote.
We are all political or politics enthusiasts - we wouldn't be here otherwise. Sometimes, we like to see change before it manifests more broadly and spot trends before they become obvious -the betting part of the site plays to that.
We all have our agendas, our teams and our flags and the debates/arguments reflect those. Too often we revisit old battles simply because we can but as the annual prediction contest shows, trying to read the runes of the future - well, I'd have more chance of going through the card at Lingfield this afternoon.
A world with Sunak as PM still and Harris as US President would have been better for Ukraine, better for the UK economy and business owners, wealthy pensioners and property owners and farmers, better for woke in the US, worse for Putin and Netanyahu, worse for UK train drivers and GPs and those claiming lots of welfare and better for the global free market which would still be largely tariff free and better for tackling climate change. It would have been good for trans in the US, not so good for trans in the UK.
It would also have been a better world for those who like slick and articulate leaders, which Sunak and Harris were clearly more than Starmer and Trump. Most of the white working class and lower middle class in both nations though clearly rejected Sunak and Harris for what they thought would be straightforward common sense with Starmer and Trump
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
No evidence the military would back Trump either if 92% of Americans do not favour an invasion of Greenland, even in the unlikely event Congress did not impeach and convict him
We so far have no evidence of the military not backing Trump. So wait and see. On the general point of support for Trumpian action, a country that has become a bit free and easy about random state backed shootings and about undermining opposition with slanderous talk of traitors is a country where it is harder to say No.
The military take an oath to the President but also to the Constitution.
If Trump ordered an invasion of Greenland at the same time as Congress impeached him (which he won't), the military would wait for the outcome of Trump's trial in the US Senate
They explicitly do not take an oath to the President.
Officers' oath:
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
An order to invade Greenland without explicit Congressional authorisation would be illegal. It would not only be in breach of the Constitution, but also would illegally breach ratified US treaty commitments, which have the force of domestic law in the US.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
I would only accept a payoff for accepting US sovereignty if I could take the money and emigrate immediately.
No amount of money would reconcile me to living under the jurisdiction of Trump's FBI and ICE.
Not sure if Greenlanders have the right to live in the EU, they will be Danish citizens but Greenland isn't in the EU.
Greenlanders have EU citizenship. Greenland's formal status is EU overseas territory.
Imagine if Keir Starmer set the legal dogs on Andrew Bailey for not slashing interest rates. If that didn't lead to his departure (Starmer, I mean) it'd indicate we were well down the path from liberal democracy to authoritarianism, wouldn't it?
The U.K. populist parties of both Right and Left want to “take back control” of Bank of England decisions.
Imagine if Keir Starmer set the legal dogs on Andrew Bailey for not slashing interest rates. If that didn't lead to his departure (Starmer, I mean) it'd indicate we were well down the path from liberal democracy to authoritarianism, wouldn't it?
Is the Bank of England's role in setting interest rates actually codified in statute, or is it simply a decision Gordon Brown took that everyone has stuck with since?
I think the difference in Britain is that the Executive in Britain has much more freedom to act, in law, than in the US, because the Executive in Britain is constrained by the ability of the Commons to replace it at will - as happened twice during the last Parliament - more than by a Constitution or law.
So a comparison between the powers and actions of the Executive in the US and the UK doesn't really make any sense, because they operate so very differently.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A really interesting post, for which many thanks.
2024 was always going to be a hard act to follow for this site - having both a UK General Election and a US Presidential election in the same year is basically two trips to the buffet on the same day and it's fair to say many on here didn't like either result. A world with Sunak as Prime Minister and Harris as President would be a very different place, you'd imagine.
As to the day-to-day impact of politics, what happens locally affects me more than what happens nationally in the short term (the longer term is different). We have in 2026 local elections here in London and that will have an impact even though I imagine barely a third of those who can vote will vote.
We are all political or politics enthusiasts - we wouldn't be here otherwise. Sometimes, we like to see change before it manifests more broadly and spot trends before they become obvious -the betting part of the site plays to that.
We all have our agendas, our teams and our flags and the debates/arguments reflect those. Too often we revisit old battles simply because we can but as the annual prediction contest shows, trying to read the runes of the future - well, I'd have more chance of going through the card at Lingfield this afternoon.
A world with Sunak as PM still and Harris as US President would have been better for Ukraine, better for the UK economy and business owners, wealthy pensioners and property owners and farmers, better for woke in the US, worse for Putin and Netanyahu, worse for UK train drivers and GPs and those claiming lots of welfare and better for the global free market which would still be largely tariff free and better for tackling climate change. It would have been good for trans in the US, not so good for trans in the UK.
It would also have been a better world for those who like slick and articulate leaders, which Sunak and Harris were clearly more than Starmer and Trump. Most of the white working class and lower middle class in both nations though clearly rejected Sunak and Harris for what they thought would be straightforward common sense with Starmer and Trump
Ironically had Harris won the GOP would likely be heading for victory in the midterms in November and have a chance of regaining the Presidency in 2028 and Cuomo might have won the NYC Mayoralty not Mamdani.
Trump's re election may longer term end up having been better for the Democrats than the Republicans and conservatives as he cannot run again but is taking the GOP down with him and his now strongly negative approval rating.
The world might have breathed a sigh of relief if Harris had beaten Trump and say Rubio or Haley won in 2028 though
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
Greenland is not about US bases. It's about America carving up Arctic mineral rights with Russia and China. Ditto making Canada the 51st state.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
It is possible this view is correct. However placing that degree of trust in the reliability of politicians under threat, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the gangster regime's unwillingness to use direct force to achieve what it wants is, to say the least, optimistic.
No evidence the military would back Trump either if 92% of Americans do not favour an invasion of Greenland, even in the unlikely event Congress did not impeach and convict him
We so far have no evidence of the military not backing Trump. So wait and see. On the general point of support for Trumpian action, a country that has become a bit free and easy about random state backed shootings and about undermining opposition with slanderous talk of traitors is a country where it is harder to say No.
I think we had the Admiral originally in command of the fleet in the Caribbean who resigned early. I think it's credible to infer that this was because they disagreed with the commands they were given, and/or thought they were illegal.
That's some distance from Trump being unable to find a flag officer willing to follow his commands, but I think it shows that there is the potential for resistance within the military chain of command, particularly to something as extreme as attacking a NATO ally.
I agree, so I shall wait and see. But so far the pessimists have been right about the nature of this regime, which is much more than a mere Trump. It is a fully staffed set up absolutely determined both to do what it likes - listen to Miller and co - and to keep hold of power and out of prison. It is on that basis I shall wait and see.
Notice this: in 12 months the USA taking sovereignty over Greenland has gone from an outlandish and impossible joke to a discussable reality. Anyone who thinks it can't happen is under a delusion. And anyone who thinks that the threat to Canada has gone away (have people forgotten it is on the list?) just because it isn't on the immediate horizon is wrong.
For some reason I am suddenly seeing posts on Facebook by various US military arms about current NATO training exercises and begging them up. In the last half hour there has been one by the US Marines about an arctic exercise with Nordics and a US Army Sniper training exercise with NATO partners in Germany I think. Haven’t seen them before.
I wonder if it’s a message from inside the military - I don’t know how controlled their social media is from the top down.
Turned on the BBC to find this, under 'Breaking News": "Ofcom has launched an investigation into Elon Musk's X to determine whether it has failed to comply with online safety laws."
How long before Musk, maybe Trump get cross about this? (Yes, I know what I've just posted about what if's!)
A quiet plea to Ben Pointer for the 2026 competition - please could we have more questions on politics and less on economics? I know that I ought to, but I just don't keep those metrics in my consciousness as much as I ought to. Whereas I am confident in forecasting Tory MPs defecting, Reform MPs spontaneously comnbusting etc.
Turned on the BBC to find this, under 'Breaking News": "Ofcom has launched an investigation into Elon Musk's X to determine whether it has failed to comply with online safety laws."
How long before Musk, maybe Trump get cross about this? (Yes, I know what I've just posted about what if's!)
Is there anyone who thinks the UK government would allow X to be banned in the UK unless the USA government agreed it was OK to do so?
Imagine if Keir Starmer set the legal dogs on Andrew Bailey for not slashing interest rates. If that didn't lead to his departure (Starmer, I mean) it'd indicate we were well down the path from liberal democracy to authoritarianism, wouldn't it?
Is the Bank of England's role in setting interest rates actually codified in statute, or is it simply a decision Gordon Brown took that everyone has stuck with since?
I think the difference in Britain is that the Executive in Britain has much more freedom to act, in law, than in the US, because the Executive in Britain is constrained by the ability of the Commons to replace it at will - as happened twice during the last Parliament - more than by a Constitution or law.
So a comparison between the powers and actions of the Executive in the US and the UK doesn't really make any sense, because they operate so very differently.
It is codified in legislation - the Bank of England Act 1998 and associated Charter introduced the Monetary Policy Committee with responsibility over monetary policy including interest rates, and (crucially) removed the power of the Secretary of State to direct the Bank to do relevant things, which had been introduced on nationalisation of the Bank in 1946.
Brown effectively introduced it instantly on coming into office in 1997 (within hours, I recall, as part of a planned approach to reassure markets) by saying I will not, as Chancellor, use my power to direct. But the legislation made it permanent (well, in the sense it would require new legislation to restore the power to the Chancellor).
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
I don't think Ireland, with a fully proportional system takes much longer, does it?
Generally speaking Ireland takes two days to get most of the count completed, though everyone has a pretty good idea of the overall result by the first lunchtime because the party workers observing the count (called tallymen) come up with very accurate tallies much more quickly. This is probably why they don't simply double/triple the number of counters in order to get the count completed in one day.
It took quite a long time after the last election to finalise the coalition deal, nearly two months. I think in the end they only felt the need to get it done so that a government was in place before Trump was inaugurated.
Ireland's system is STV, which is slower to count than a simple, directly proportional system, would be.
STV is a shite system. The number of seats a party wins in a constituency is influenced by how many candidates they field.
No such nonsense with D'Hondt. The gold standard system for multi-member constituencies.
Turned on the BBC to find this, under 'Breaking News": "Ofcom has launched an investigation into Elon Musk's X to determine whether it has failed to comply with online safety laws."
How long before Musk, maybe Trump get cross about this? (Yes, I know what I've just posted about what if's!)
Is there anyone who thinks the UK government would allow X to be banned in the UK unless the USA government agreed it was OK to do so?
An investigation from Ofcom will likely take ages and lead to a nominal fine. It's not going to lead to a ban.
@nadhimzahawi · Mar 12, 2015 I'm not British Born Mr @Nigel_Farage I am as British as u r. Yr comments r offensive&racist. I wld b frightened 2live in country run by U.
Thanks for this, Ben, and "Ho, hum" for my predictions.
Does anyone get the impression that there seemed to be very little reviewing of 2025 both on PB and across the wider media? If ever a year slipped into history unloved and unmarked, 2025 was it, and perhaps it is a wider malaise than simply Starmer or Trump or any one of the news stories this year.
And yet, and this is true for most years, and is an important corollary to the go and vote / politics is vital brigade: how often does politics directly turn the course of somebody's life on here? Despite Trump, despite Labour, despite war and refugees and all, most years and last year, the effects of politics on my life were very much at the margins and I think most people can say the same. So, however mad it gets out there, remember it remains a niche and peripheral interest.
Perhaps politics will come for me this year, and perhaps it is naive to be complacent about it, but more likely "They'll burn down the synagogues at 6 o'clock, and we'll all carry on like before".
A perceptive post. I do sometimes wonder if it makes a blind bit of difference to my life which party / politicians are elected but on the macro scale I fear it does - the world feels much less safe with Trump in the White House.
Indeed. To echo TSE’s comments, I think a US invasion of Greenland would have a huge impact on all of us in the UK.
73% of Americans oppose invading Greenland, just 8% in favour, even a majority of Republican voters are opposed. It is not happening.
A purchase offer is more likely but still only 28% in favour
Like a lot of things in the American democracy/opposition to Trump category, the views of the American public only matter if they matter.
Is there any sign at all that they do? In the Good Place, "congressmen and senators want to be re-elected" is a good answer, but it's not obvious that we are in the Good Place.
73% opposition is enough to ensure even Congress impeaches and convicts Trump if he invaded Greenland (which he won't). The fact less than half of even Republican voters back such an invasion means most Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump rather than face losing their seats in that eventuality, which is again why Trump won't.
He will try and buy Greenland which over half of Republicans at least back but that is it
This argument is predicated on there being a continuing future of free and fair elections in the USA. I don't think we can begin assessing that until after the November election time.
No, given almost half of Republican Senators and a few GOP House Reps have joined all the Democrats to tell Trump not to invade Greenland he would be impeached if he did so by the House and likely convicted by the required 2/3 margin in the Senate even now if he invaded Greenland.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Personally I think Trump SOP is to suggest an ultra-extreme policy opyion in order to reduce opposition to a slightly less extreme one. I can't see a US invasion of Greenald, but a buy-out or similar might well be offered. It's an interesting question how open voters are to buyouts. {Patriotism per se is unfashionable, and most countries have unpopular governments and oppositions specialising in cashing in on Government unpopularity. Is there a price that Greenlanders (who aren't thrilled by Danish support, but at present even less thrilled by becoming American) wou,d accept? $100K doesn't seem enough, but $1 billionK per head? Come to that, would British voters resist any offer?
I expect the break-even would be around $1m per head. So that’s 50-60bn for the US to spend.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
Denmark provides about $700 million subsidy a year; the EU around $100 million on top. So I guess 30 years subsidy as a lump sum comes to a $24 billion figure, if you don't care USA or Denmark. Any hostile takeover needs a premium, so your numbers look right. Although we are not including a who-in their-right-mind-would-trust-a-Trump-contract premium.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
I would only accept a payoff for accepting US sovereignty if I could take the money and emigrate immediately.
No amount of money would reconcile me to living under the jurisdiction of Trump's FBI and ICE.
Not sure if Greenlanders have the right to live in the EU, they will be Danish citizens but Greenland isn't in the EU.
Greenlanders have EU citizenship. Greenland's formal status is EU overseas territory.
I thought they had Grexited. Or did they rejoin?
Greenland as a colony of Denmark was never an EU member in its own right. It derogated from the EU acquis, or rules and regulations, applying to the territory. The EU Overseas Countries and Territories agreement that Greenland is now a member of appears to be analogous to the EEA arrangement that Norway has, but closer to membership in some respects and further apart in others. Greenlanders are citizens of Denmark and therefore EU citizens.
Recent opinion polls point to Greenland reinstating EU membership. Presumably easier for them than for the UK.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
I don't think Ireland, with a fully proportional system takes much longer, does it?
Generally speaking Ireland takes two days to get most of the count completed, though everyone has a pretty good idea of the overall result by the first lunchtime because the party workers observing the count (called tallymen) come up with very accurate tallies much more quickly. This is probably why they don't simply double/triple the number of counters in order to get the count completed in one day.
It took quite a long time after the last election to finalise the coalition deal, nearly two months. I think in the end they only felt the need to get it done so that a government was in place before Trump was inaugurated.
Ireland's system is STV, which is slower to count than a simple, directly proportional system, would be.
STV is a shite system. The number of seats a party wins in a constituency is influenced by how many candidates they field.
No such nonsense with D'Hondt. The gold standard system for multi-member constituencies.
"D'Hondt" was a Belgian civil servant who gave his name to a particular formula often used to calculate the number of seats according to the propoortion of votes cast. The D'Hondt Formula is the one used to calculate the seats in an STV election. STV is the D'Hondt process in action.
Congratulations to @Driver on the win, and to @Benpointer for organising.
Sets reminder to self, to remember to enter the competition this year!
We're just finalising the questions.
We've got some proper elections to predict in 2026.
There were national elections in Germany, Canada and Australia last year.
This year the only major national elections are the US midterms and the New Zealand election
Q1. Will the 2026 US midterms be free and fair? A1 Yes 0 :No 10 points.
They probably will overall, it is state governments that run them not the Federal government anyway
US elections are never that fair, because gerrymandering is so embedded.
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
I’m always shocked at the amount of political micromanaging that goes on around US elections, with town mayors deciding things such as the location and opening hours of ballot boxes.
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
Downside of the "direct electoral accountability for everything" model that the USA tends towards.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
Yes, for all that we critisise politics the UK is actually very good at organising elections themselves.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
I don't think Ireland, with a fully proportional system takes much longer, does it?
Generally speaking Ireland takes two days to get most of the count completed, though everyone has a pretty good idea of the overall result by the first lunchtime because the party workers observing the count (called tallymen) come up with very accurate tallies much more quickly. This is probably why they don't simply double/triple the number of counters in order to get the count completed in one day.
It took quite a long time after the last election to finalise the coalition deal, nearly two months. I think in the end they only felt the need to get it done so that a government was in place before Trump was inaugurated.
Ireland's system is STV, which is slower to count than a simple, directly proportional system, would be.
STV is a shite system. The number of seats a party wins in a constituency is influenced by how many candidates they field.
No such nonsense with D'Hondt. The gold standard system for multi-member constituencies.
More correctly the number of seats a party wins is influenced by how the voters react to the number of candidates the party fields, and the qualities of those candidates.
No other electoral system gives the voters as much power to select the party affiliation and individual qualities of the politician they wish to represent them.
Short of banning political parties I can't think of an electoral system that more effectively minimises the power of political parties. Whereas party list PR puts the party bureaucracy even more in control than with FPTP.
Nadim Zahawi arrived in the UK from Iraq as a child refugee. His family claimed asylum once they were here. Today he has joined Reform who will stop all in country asylum applications. Under his new party, his own family fleeing persecution would be immediately deported.
@nadhimzahawi · Mar 12, 2015 I'm not British Born Mr @Nigel_Farage I am as British as u r. Yr comments r offensive&racist. I wld b frightened 2live in country run by U.
Comments
Has anyone done a list of who controls the process in the competitive districts? It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it might.
And good luck in binding a future Parliament to such payments, whether run by Farage or not.
If Democrats as polls predict take the House in November they will almost certainly impeach again Trump even if he doesn't invade Greenland.
As I said, US midterms are run by State governments NOT the Federal government
Probably the best from for me were Mallen Baker, Anne Applebaum and I think Legal Eagle.
I think we will see an upswing in podcasts that are 30 minutes rather than an hour.
Trump has never done something before he has not had at least more than half of Republicans in favour of
Which of course they engineer to make sure their opponents’ voters face long queues, it’s all quite nakedly partisan.
The US House is now so Gerrymandered that only a couple of dozen seats change hands, even when there’s a relatively large swing in the vote.
Even attempts to tighten up rules such as voter ID, are fought along party lines.
The Mad King thinks it might be in his interests, which is not exactly the same thing
Well done to all who took part, and thanks to Ben for organising it.
Some things are better done by technocrats working to explicit and democratically-agreed mandates.
To make us all feel good about ourselves and to remind us we are still "top nation", I have no doubt in stating the UK Wordle is the toughest.
I've been thinking about the AI nude images and I don't see how democracy in its current form survives the technology. It's arguably a bigger threat than Russia. I think that technology is coming for a lot of women in 2026 - so not many people on PB.com, but we will likely notice the backlash.
I was wondering, is there any precedent for a country to bribe inhabitants of another country to sell their sovereignty? Not the rulers (as the US effectively did multiple times at both local and state level) but the inhabitants?
The political issue in the 50 states would not necessarily be the total cost, though that’s still material, but the fairness point. “Why are those lazy workshy Greenlanders sitting in clover on the expense account of Uncle Sam while I, a patriotic hard working American, struggle to pay the grocery bills each week?”
IIRC the Harris campaign raised $1.4bn in three months, Trump raised less but still close to $1bn.
We generally wake up in the morning after a general election, with a pretty good idea of what’s happening. Only 2010 comes to mind as being up in the air for a few days, at least since the ‘70s.
Which was coalition forming in the style that happens in many countries. And the coalition was arrived at much faster than quite a few countries manage on a regular basis.
The US could on the other hand save their money and still get all the bases they want
The contrast with the US elections, is stark, especially with counting that can take weeks in some States, and little incentive to make the process more efficient. The one exception is Florida, where they had their pants pulled down in 2000 and decided they didn’t want to be a laughing stock in the Supreme Court again, so now they finish the count overnight.
It took quite a long time after the last election to finalise the coalition deal, nearly two months. I think in the end they only felt the need to get it done so that a government was in place before Trump was inaugurated.
Ireland's system is STV, which is slower to count than a simple, directly proportional system, would be.
No amount of money would reconcile me to living under the jurisdiction of Trump's FBI and ICE.
On Government forming, Belgium holds the record for time taken, doesn't it?
Trump is not a rational person. There are reports that he has asked the US military to draw up Greenland invasion plans.
Trump may not have to run for re election but most of them will have to and given the overwhelming polling opposition to a US invasion of Greenland even from Republican voters he would inevitably be impeached and likely convicted if he tried it.
As Nick P states Trump is just using an invasion floating as an outrageous move to try and get more consensus for a more realistic option, the US buying Greenland for billions and billions of dollars. Most Republican voters do back that even if still not the median US voter.
Trump isn't stupid, this is all tactics from the classic Trump dealmaking playbook
https://www.travelsafe-abroad.com/united-kingdom/
If Trump ordered an invasion of Greenland at the same time as Congress impeached him (which he won't), the military would wait for the outcome of Trump's trial in the US Senate
That's some distance from Trump being unable to find a flag officer willing to follow his commands, but I think it shows that there is the potential for resistance within the military chain of command, particularly to something as extreme as attacking a NATO ally.
Trump's re election may longer term end up having been better for the Democrats than the Republicans and conservatives as he cannot run again but is taking the GOP down with him and his now strongly negative approval rating.
The world might have breathed a sigh of relief if Harris had beaten Trump and say Rubio or Haley won in 2028 though
You may form your own judgment on the global effects of that.
Officers' oath:
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
An order to invade Greenland without explicit Congressional authorisation would be illegal.
It would not only be in breach of the Constitution, but also would illegally breach ratified US treaty commitments, which have the force of domestic law in the US.
I could easily see that going bad.
@GuidoFawkes
BREAKING: Former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi defects to Reform UK
I think the difference in Britain is that the Executive in Britain has much more freedom to act, in law, than in the US, because the Executive in Britain is constrained by the ability of the Commons to replace it at will - as happened twice during the last Parliament - more than by a Constitution or law.
So a comparison between the powers and actions of the Executive in the US and the UK doesn't really make any sense, because they operate so very differently.
Notice this: in 12 months the USA taking sovereignty over Greenland has gone from an outlandish and impossible joke to a discussable reality. Anyone who thinks it can't happen is under a delusion. And anyone who thinks that the threat to Canada has gone away (have people forgotten it is on the list?) just because it isn't on the immediate horizon is wrong.
I wonder if it’s a message from inside the military - I don’t know how controlled their social media is from the top down.
"Ofcom has launched an investigation into Elon Musk's X to determine whether it has failed to comply with online safety laws."
How long before Musk, maybe Trump get cross about this?
(Yes, I know what I've just posted about what if's!)
I'd guess he'd be the one most people would struggle to name when asked who were the four Chancellors of 2022.
On second thoughts maybe this is confirmation.
Brown effectively introduced it instantly on coming into office in 1997 (within hours, I recall, as part of a planned approach to reassure markets) by saying I will not, as Chancellor, use my power to direct. But the legislation made it permanent (well, in the sense it would require new legislation to restore the power to the Chancellor).
No such nonsense with D'Hondt. The gold standard system for multi-member constituencies.
·
Mar 12, 2015
I'm not British Born Mr
@Nigel_Farage
I am as British as u r. Yr comments r offensive&racist. I wld b frightened 2live in country run by U.
@nadhimzahawi
·
Sep 27, 2014
Replying to
@mizog366
.
@mizog366
@MarkReckless
@UKIP
@Nigel_Farage
no chance. Been a Conservative all my life and will die a Conservative.
Recent opinion polls point to Greenland reinstating EU membership. Presumably easier for them than for the UK.
No other electoral system gives the voters as much power to select the party affiliation and individual qualities of the politician they wish to represent them.
Short of banning political parties I can't think of an electoral system that more effectively minimises the power of political parties. Whereas party list PR puts the party bureaucracy even more in control than with FPTP.
Nadim Zahawi arrived in the UK from Iraq as a child refugee. His family claimed asylum once they were here. Today he has joined Reform who will stop all in country asylum applications. Under his new party, his own family fleeing persecution would be immediately deported.