“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
That's pretty pitiful stuff, Big_G.
And all the existing evidence is that pandering to Trump is completely futile, while standing up to him works... sometimes.
I tried to put forward a realistic comment on this crisis and sorry you find it pitiful
I have no idea how antagonising Trump gains favour with him and I just have this feeling that Trump has all the cards
Let me be clear, this crisis is unique in my 82 years in so much as we cannot trust the US anymore, sadly
May I ask what would you want Starmer and Europe to do ?
Well this is embarrassing! We need to think about a new Labour leader and Prime Minister. He's a decent man but we need an altogether different approach. We need someone who is saying the things Ed Davey is saying. We're being blown around like a kite in a hurricane. The only Labour figure who has the bottle and the brain is Emily Thornberry. Starmer can be reassigned the job of sorting out the detail of the UK rejoining the EU which must happen as soon as possible and without caveats
(Chris Packham. Very good on Radio 4. Definitely one of the good guys)
Starmer isn't the problem. Streeting or Our Ange would behave no differently. The entire British establishment, with few laudable exceptions like Corbyn and Galloway, can conceive of no other mode of operation than supplicant grovelling before the US.
You watch, King Prince Charles will to go the US for the 250th anniversary, say nothing about Greenland or Canada (of which state he is putatively head) and tongue DJT's hole like the craven weakling he is.
King Charles will do what the Government tells him to do. As the UK constitution requires. The suggestion that grabbing power that isn't his, is an appropriate response to Trump's behaviour, is certainly curious.
“250 years is long enough to run an experiment and I think we can all agree it has failed. Now, about those back taxes….”
Its time that the USA became the 93rd county.
The 15th overseas territory. Limited self government only, in order to avoid the systematic corruption that has become prevalent in recent years.
@maxseddon Donald Trump has invited Vladimir Putin to the Gaza "peace board," the Kremlin says.
Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, says Russia is "studying all details of the offer" and "hopes for discussions with Washington to go over all the nuances," per RIA Novosti.
The escape for Republicans, if they choose to take it, is to expressly acknowledge he's ill. They can "celebrate his achievements" if they want to make it more politically acceptable. And they probably need to unite around JD Vance.
It'd be of considerable benefit to them if Melania is on board.
He is possibly worse than Trump and doesn’t have the excuse of being mentally ill.
What's everyone else's take on Vance? Mine is that he's a careerist. He might believe things but he doesn't believe them very hard. In the debates he made the best effort he could of not appearing nuts, within the admittedly very restrictive bounds set for him by Trump and the Maga movement, and he clearly knows what "not nuts" looks like. He'd optimize for winning the election, which would mean not invading countries that look larger than they are on the Mercator projection, and only doing tariffs to the extent necessary to intimidate businesspeople.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
I think there is an opportunity here for Badenoch. This fannying about by Starmer won't be tolerated for much longer and I think he's left a significant gap for her between his inaction and Davey's pontifications. Something that is both pragmatic and patriotic, about standing up to bullies.
I think there is an opportunity here for Badenoch. This fannying about by Starmer won't be tolerated for much longer and I think he's left a significant gap for her between his inaction and Davey's pontifications. Something that is both pragmatic and patriotic, about standing up to bullies.
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
I think Isam/Frayne are wrong. Tory oblivion isn't even close, and is substantially less close than it was when Reform peaked and was getting 34/35%. At this moment if the Tories went up 4 or 5 points and Reform went down the same, Tories would be in the driving seat. Something like this will be the case by the end of 2026 IMO. Increasingly Reform look like a bunch of untalented chancers who won't criticise Trump even as he shows himself to be our adversary. Their high profile converts are an unimpressive bunch of carpetbaggers, unworthy of respect.
The roughly 50% of voters who will vote 'right of centre' are very much in play.
And another thing: that this letter was sent via official channels and not tweeted out. Nobody in State stepped in to soften or tidy it up, or to keep it quiet. Instead they blasted it out to all the other European nations.
Mr Rubio needs to make sure that everyone at State understands formal diplomatic letters and Tweets from the WH are not supposed to be in the same format!
How does Mr Rubio impress that fact upon Mr Trump?
I think he has two choices:
1. In the sort of diplomatic language that one should expect from the Secretary of State.
Or
2. In the crazy language of Trump’s Tweets, telling him that if he’s not careful he’s going to start World War III with Europe.
If it were me, I’d try something like the best way to get control over Greenland is to put Russia so far back in their box that no-one needs to worry about them for the next few years; which could also serve keeping China busy looking at Vladivostok and not at Taiwan.
What I hope Starmer is doing is what the Chamberlain supporters say Chamberlain was doing: playing for time and preparing for the inevitable with that time.
But I fear he's only doing one half of that.
When Chamberlain was waving pieces of paper, his government had, for years, been re-arming. At a rate that they were finding it difficult to spend more money. Because you can't just order weapons on that scale. You have to build the factories to make the machines to build weapons, first.
There's absolutely no sign of that kind of thinking here.
Yes. We're only doing the playing for time half, and not using that time to prepare for when action can no longer be delayed.
I'm no longer annoyed or frustrated by Starmer's failures. I'm ashamed of them.
Starmer's prob is that this sounds like a holding speech in the midst of a huge realignment (or, more accurately,a nutter President causing chaos). Fair dos. But ppl will also hear very Starmer-esque denial of the need for agility & imagination. The moment demands v. rare skills (that he hasn't got)
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
I think there is an opportunity here for Badenoch. This fannying about by Starmer won't be tolerated for much longer and I think he's left a significant gap for her between his inaction and Davey's pontifications. Something that is both pragmatic and patriotic, about standing up to bullies.
It would be a gutsy move. The Tories are typically more pro-US, so for Badenoch to make that kind of play would be an exceptionally significant moment. Does she have the support in the party? What is the alternative - articulating a closer relationship with Europe would cause her issues too. Maybe she has some political capital to spend at the moment - I would welcome her taking a stronger approach - but that’s not an easy calculation for the Tories.
All worms are spineless. But then again worms are vitally important animals - we depend on them.
Starmer is something else. I can’t think of anything that describes him without offending innocent lifeforms. Or come to that useful inanimate objects.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
I think there is an opportunity here for Badenoch. This fannying about by Starmer won't be tolerated for much longer and I think he's left a significant gap for her between his inaction and Davey's pontifications. Something that is both pragmatic and patriotic, about standing up to bullies.
The opportunity for Badenoch is to be boringly supportive of Starmer and other EuroNATO leaders, and draw quiet attention to the way in which it is unclear whether Reform are more behind the deranged Trump than they are behind the dull Starmer.
Definite signs that Starmer is softening the country up for a rejoin or something very much like it. An unusually good and positive press conference by Starmer. He's impressive.
I think there is an opportunity here for Badenoch. This fannying about by Starmer won't be tolerated for much longer and I think he's left a significant gap for her between his inaction and Davey's pontifications. Something that is both pragmatic and patriotic, about standing up to bullies.
I think so too. About creating the ability to stand up to bullies.
Politically she can also tie it in to Brexit, and the way in which the EU tries to squeeze the maximum out of the UK at every opportunity (e.g. over fishing and the absurd demand to pay £bns to join the EU defence scheme), to make it about Britain standing up against all forms of coercion, in a way that Starmer could not.
What I hope Starmer is doing is what the Chamberlain supporters say Chamberlain was doing: playing for time and preparing for the inevitable with that time.
But I fear he's only doing one half of that.
When Chamberlain was waving pieces of paper, his government had, for years, been re-arming. At a rate that they were finding it difficult to spend more money. Because you can't just order weapons on that scale. You have to build the factories to make the machines to build weapons, first.
There's absolutely no sign of that kind of thinking here.
Yes. We're only doing the playing for time half, and not using that time to prepare for when action can no longer be delayed.
I'm no longer annoyed or frustrated by Starmer's failures. I'm ashamed of them.
We're economically exhausted, but the global economy is in the midst of a rapid shift. How do exhausted economies get out of holes in times of crisis? They invest in stuff. It is blindingly obvious that we need to build a lot more defence products, and to do that we need steel. If the Dazell plant can't afford to buy steel to start making parts for our new ships, we need to take it over. Now.
And that's just the start. Investment into these areas costs money. But it also creates jobs, further investment, regeneration - all of which boost the economy and thus tax receipts.
Putting it bluntly before someone asks "how can we afford this", how can we afford *not* to do this?
Definite signs that Starmer is softening the country up for a rejoin or something very much like it. An unusually good and positive press conference by Starmer. He's impressive.
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Thanks. I think the CCHQ spinners are going to have to work very hard to claim any sort of statistical superiority after the May elections - there simply aren't enough Conservative-voting heartlands going to the polls to give them a decent showing in the final calculations. That's tough on Badenoch - she's been a fairly "lucky general" up until now, but in May she is fighting in territories that are distinctly hostile to her. Even getting to a poor second place is going to be a bit of a stretch.
@maxseddon Donald Trump has invited Vladimir Putin to the Gaza "peace board," the Kremlin says.
Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, says Russia is "studying all details of the offer" and "hopes for discussions with Washington to go over all the nuances," per RIA Novosti.
The Council of Europe should send one country to represent us all. Denmark.
The escape for Republicans, if they choose to take it, is to expressly acknowledge he's ill. They can "celebrate his achievements" if they want to make it more politically acceptable. And they probably need to unite around JD Vance.
It'd be of considerable benefit to them if Melania is on board.
He is possibly worse than Trump and doesn’t have the excuse of being mentally ill.
What's everyone else's take on Vance? Mine is that he's a careerist. He might believe things but he doesn't believe them very hard. In the debates he made the best effort he could of not appearing nuts, within the admittedly very restrictive bounds set for him by Trump and the Maga movement, and he clearly knows what "not nuts" looks like. He'd optimize for winning the election, which would mean not invading countries that look larger than they are on the Mercator projection, and only doing tariffs to the extent necessary to intimidate businesspeople.
Vance is US Jenrick.
Nah, Jenrick is a namby-pamby, shall we say, "centrist" compared to Vance!
The British response has to be in the British national interest.
Shouting at Trump would make us feel good, but it wouldn’t make any difference.
Levying our own tariffs or restricting market access would only damage ourselves.
The right answer is to state calmly and clearly our lines on Denmark, refuse to damage ourselves via tariffs (and say so, to make a point); but have a genuine medium term strategy to diverge militarily from the USA, partnering more closely with are reliable allies.
Within all that, leverage this moment to strike a fair and equitable deal with the EU where we coexist and help each other militarily and economically. E.g. Yes we might as well follow most of their manufacturing rules, as the companies will anyway, but we want different animal welfare standards and more GM. Yes we can align our data standards but we take a more liberal view on AI. The common sense stuff close friends ought to be able to agree quickly to give some mutual economic support to each other while Donald has a tantrum.
I've some sympathy with this, but do we keep saying this when Trump says he needs Iceland and Scotland for global security? At some point we have to say no...
He’s welcome to Scotland if he agrees to take Northern Ireland off our hands at the same time….
More seriously we should, of course, keeping saying no on Greenland and leave a “trip wire” deployment in place, but we can do that quietly and avoid the temptation to shout.
A large number of Scots-Irish (aka themuns) have roots in the Province. Explains a lot of the bat-shittery and religious fervour.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Thanks. I think the CCHQ spinners are going to have to work very hard to claim any sort of statistical superiority after the May elections - there simply aren't enough Conservative-voting heartlands going to the polls to give them a decent showing in the final calculations. That's tough on Badenoch - she's been a fairly "lucky general" up until now, but in May she is fighting in territories that are distinctly hostile to her. Even getting to a poor second place is going to be a bit of a stretch.
The reality is that the Tories could finish fifth in both devolved elections, 25% is the minimum in the NESV to show the party isn’t going backwards since 2024, that’s what two Tory MPs have told me independently.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
In all seriousness, I think it would help all concerned if only the media would use better maps! They insist on using Mercator Procections, which distort area sizes closer to the poles. If only they used a Peters Projection, or similar, which showed the actual relative sizes of the land masses, we might all be a little wiser. I know this sounds technical and silly, but it really isn't - the pictures are misleading, but we are so used to them that we can't re-visualise the problems. I reckon DJT really does think that Greenland is Very Big Indeed.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Not today we can't.
That's why it makes sense for Starmer to play for time. But he does actually then have to use that time to do things.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
The danger is that Trump, in a fit of pique, withdraws support for Ukraine. I think Starmer is mindful of that. Don't do what Putin wants you to do. The crisis shows up the inadequacy of both Davey and Farage in their different ways.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
The only other option is the French M51. Which has a larger diameter for a start - though you might be able to do something to finesse that. See Poseidon and Polaris.
You'd probably end up cutting the subs in half and replacing the missile compartment. Then there would be all the gear to control the missiles. Multiple billions and years per boat.
It would probably be cheaper to develop a missile ourselves - see Italy and Alpha. It could be design and built to size, and could be designed to use at least some of the existing physical systems.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
Denmark spends less than us on defence, but more relative to their GDP or population.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
And build our own SSBN degaussing facility.
Stuff like that takes years, though. We should have started some time back, but the next best time is now.
Scrap the stuff that doesn't matter to help pay for it.
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
The headline of the night will be big Labour losses, eg Labour lose Birmingham/Sunderland/Wakefield etc.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
In all seriousness, I think it would help all concerned if only the media would use better maps! They insist on using Mercator Procections, which distort area sizes closer to the poles. If only they used a Peters Projection, or similar, which showed the actual relative sizes of the land masses, we might all be a little wiser. I know this sounds technical and silly, but it really isn't - the pictures are misleading, but we are so used to them that we can't re-visualise the problems. I reckon DJT really does think that Greenland is Very Big Indeed.
Not the Peters projection. It massively distorts shapes and is very ugly.
The Mollweide projection is, in my view, one of the more optimal ones. (But of course all projections are by their nature compromises, and you should probably use different projections for different purposes. Very few people are navigating the oceans by hand and so very few people should be using the Mercator projection, but I cannot think of a single use for which the Peters projection is optimal. It is horrendous.)
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
And if you are worried about economic investment, consider this - If you offered 5% on top of any offer for major investment (mineral wealth), you'd get everything. If fact I would go further. This is because an offer of so much would make Greenland independence possible - the polls say that the big sticking point for the Icelanders is the economics of independence without the Danish subsidy.
So if you followed my idea, you'd have a rich, independent Greenland that loved the US and was completely dependent on it. All done with smiles. And you have all the mineral wealth. While the locals would be cheering on a deal that is good for them as well.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Thanks. I think the CCHQ spinners are going to have to work very hard to claim any sort of statistical superiority after the May elections - there simply aren't enough Conservative-voting heartlands going to the polls to give them a decent showing in the final calculations. That's tough on Badenoch - she's been a fairly "lucky general" up until now, but in May she is fighting in territories that are distinctly hostile to her. Even getting to a poor second place is going to be a bit of a stretch.
The reality is that the Tories could finish fifth in both devolved elections, 25% is the minimum in the NESV to show the party isn’t going backwards since 2024, that’s what two Tory MPs have told me independently.
They’d still have to be totally crazy to come for Kemi after the locals.
She’s clearly getting more airtime in a difficult situation at the moment, comes across as sensible as others towards the fringes depart for Reform.
And the biggest question of all, with whom would you replace her that could hit the ground running and do a better job?
Edit: and as others have mentioned, the poor Labour performance is also going to be in the headlines.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Not ICBMs, no. The choices would be:
a) Develop our own at a cost in the tens of billions* (thanking god we at least already have the warhead tech) to fit the missile tubes we have/will have and see AUKUS become “AUK” on the side;
b) See if the French will go halves as it’s ruinously expensive for them too, but in so doing see all the existing missile tubes become useless;
c) Switch to some sort of bomber force based around an adapted future cruise on GCAP; or
d) lose our nukes.
*though if we really fall out we can presumably save some cash reverse engineering the existing kit.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
No. It's a complicated business. I have some contacts who worked on the missile tubes at Rosyth - designed to take Trident, and now delivered to Barrow to be installed on the Dreadnought-class. These tubes are then fitted out with the missiles at the US base in Georgia, and then back to Faslane for the warheads. We're locked into this system until about 2080.
Without some massive and urgent investment into a copy of those missiles we're stuck. The deterrent is only independent between missile servicing periods.
Definite signs that Starmer is softening the country up for a rejoin or something very much like it. An unusually good and positive press conference by Starmer. He's impressive.
How would that help us, and how it help the EU, deal with the lunatic in the White House?
Definite signs that Starmer is softening the country up for a rejoin or something very much like it. An unusually good and positive press conference by Starmer. He's impressive.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
The danger is that Trump, in a fit of pique, withdraws support for Ukraine. I think Starmer is mindful of that. Don't do what Putin wants you to do. The crisis shows up the inadequacy of both Davey and Farage in their different ways.
Trump isn’t providing any support for Ukraine.
IIUC the US are still providing intelligence, selling weapons and delivering weapons already funded under Biden. They're also still enforcing sanctions on Russia, arguably more vigorously where it counts (oil shipments) than Biden did. Put these together and it's a lot.
I'm not particularly advocating one course or another but there's clearly a benefit to Ukraine to keeping US support going for as long as they can.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Not ICBMs, no. The choices wound be:
a) Develop our own at a cost in the tens of billions* (thanking god we at least already have the warhead tech) to fit the missile tubes we have/will have and see AUKUS become “AUK” on the side;
b) See if the French will go halves as it’s ruinously expensive for them too, but in so doing see all the existing missile tubes become useless;
c) Switch to some sort of bomber force based around an adapted future cruise on GCAP; or
d) lose our nukes.
*though if we really fall out we can presumably save some cash reverse engineering the existing kit.
Someone posted here that certain aspects (including a very good missile, apparently) of our nuclear deterrent is jointly made/owned with the US, so that may not be a huge problem.
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Thanks. I think the CCHQ spinners are going to have to work very hard to claim any sort of statistical superiority after the May elections - there simply aren't enough Conservative-voting heartlands going to the polls to give them a decent showing in the final calculations. That's tough on Badenoch - she's been a fairly "lucky general" up until now, but in May she is fighting in territories that are distinctly hostile to her. Even getting to a poor second place is going to be a bit of a stretch.
The reality is that the Tories could finish fifth in both devolved elections, 25% is the minimum in the NESV to show the party isn’t going backwards since 2024, that’s what two Tory MPs have told me independently.
They’d still have to be totally crazy to come for Kemi after the locals.
She’s clearly getting more airtime in a difficult situation at the moment, comes across as sensible as others towards the fringes depart for Reform.
And the biggest question of all, with whom would you replace her that could hit the ground running and do a better job?
Cleverly would be odds on to replace her now Jenrick has left but Cleverly is now a Kemi loyalist, he would only get the job if the Tories were 3rd on NEV in May, Kemi resigned or lost a VONC. Then he would get it by coronation now I expect. Much like when Howard replaced IDS in 2003
What the fuck do Starmer's critics expect him to say? "I have to tell the nation. We are now at war with the USA"?
I have more sympathy than most with his position, and reckon he's doing about as well as could, diplomatically. He is dealing with a deranged POTUS who has an equally, if not even more, deranged back-up team. But they are also fickle and inconsistent, so nothing is set in stone other than their lunacy. As a result, knee-jerk responses are dangerous and likely to be overtaken by events. And while I might agree with Ed Davey's rhetoric, there's a huge difference between being in opposition and being in power.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
This is all pretty abject.
You tell a bully to f*ck off. You don’t fawn over him.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
Sure Trump is determined, but that doesn't mean we have to give way.
We can make it clear to America that if they go ahead with this there will be consequences, and if they don't want to suffer those consequences then they should deal with Trump.
Then it's up to America to decide.
The tactic of fawning over Trump and giving him everything he wants to placate him, as though he's an omnipotent Dudley Dursley, has to stop. It doesn't work.
Definite signs that Starmer is softening the country up for a rejoin or something very much like it. An unusually good and positive press conference by Starmer. He's impressive.
How would that help us, and how it help the EU, deal with the lunatic in the White House?
Starmer wants closer alignment with the EEA, he has said he doesn't even want to rejoin it or a CU let alone the full EU
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Thanks. I think the CCHQ spinners are going to have to work very hard to claim any sort of statistical superiority after the May elections - there simply aren't enough Conservative-voting heartlands going to the polls to give them a decent showing in the final calculations. That's tough on Badenoch - she's been a fairly "lucky general" up until now, but in May she is fighting in territories that are distinctly hostile to her. Even getting to a poor second place is going to be a bit of a stretch.
The reality is that the Tories could finish fifth in both devolved elections, 25% is the minimum in the NESV to show the party isn’t going backwards since 2024, that’s what two Tory MPs have told me independently.
They’d still have to be totally crazy to come for Kemi after the locals.
She’s clearly getting more airtime in a difficult situation at the moment, comes across as sensible as others towards the fringes depart for Reform.
And the biggest question of all, with whom would you replace her that could hit the ground running and do a better job?
Yes. It would be the height of stupidity to remove Badenoch this year - personally I think they should keep her til the GE now.
She’s not everyone’s cup of tea, she’s made mistakes, and she’s got a long way to go if she wants to lead the Tories back to relevance. But she is right that there’s no short term fix, and a panicked change of leader will set them back even more, not less. Do the Tories really want to reinforce the idea they go through ritual leader-sacrifice every 1-3 years right now? How does that help them?
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Realistically, only from the French. Whose missiles don’t fit our launch tubes - they’re too wide. I don’t think any other allay makes sub-surface submarine launched ICBMs?
Fortunately, we do still (just about) have a functioning rocket industry. Standing up our own missile program is doable. It’s just painfully expensive at a time when the pressures on government spending are very great & it will probably take years for such a program to produce a functioning system. Polaris & Trident were a great gift from the US to the UK - we piggy backed on their research & development for decades, but they also bound us very tightly into the US defence establishment. The French put independence first & we didn’t & are now having to deal with the consequences of that decision.
Definite signs that Starmer is softening the country up for a rejoin or something very much like it. An unusually good and positive press conference by Starmer. He's impressive.
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Thanks. I think the CCHQ spinners are going to have to work very hard to claim any sort of statistical superiority after the May elections - there simply aren't enough Conservative-voting heartlands going to the polls to give them a decent showing in the final calculations. That's tough on Badenoch - she's been a fairly "lucky general" up until now, but in May she is fighting in territories that are distinctly hostile to her. Even getting to a poor second place is going to be a bit of a stretch.
The reality is that the Tories could finish fifth in both devolved elections, 25% is the minimum in the NESV to show the party isn’t going backwards since 2024, that’s what two Tory MPs have told me independently.
They’d still have to be totally crazy to come for Kemi after the locals.
She’s clearly getting more airtime in a difficult situation at the moment, comes across as sensible as others towards the fringes depart for Reform.
And the biggest question of all, with whom would you replace her that could hit the ground running and do a better job?
Edit: and as others have mentioned, the poor Labour performance is also going to be in the headlines.
I wouldn’t replace her but Tory MPs who might lose their jobs might.
Actually I would replace her with Sir Jeremy Hunt but that’s not going to happen.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
I think on current evidence "Mad King and scheming courtiers" is the correct way to model Trump. You don't know what he's going to do tomorrow because he's mad, he often agrees with the last person he spoke to, and in any case he's being manipulated by rival factions and we don't have much visibility into what they're up to. The fact that he's determined to do something today doesn't mean that he's going to do it, or even that he'll still be determined to do it tomorrow.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
Sure Trump is determined, but that doesn't mean we have to give way.
We can make it clear to America that if they go ahead with this there will be consequences, and if they don't want to suffer those consequences then they should deal with Trump.
Then it's up to America to decide.
The tactic of fawning over Trump and giving him everything he wants to placate him, as though he's an omnipotent Dudley Dursley, has to stop. It doesn't work.
An annoucement at WEF that a coalition of a dozen European countries intends to develop a new common independent nuclear deterrent, would probably make the news Stateside.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Not ICBMs, no. The choices wound be:
a) Develop our own at a cost in the tens of billions* (thanking god we at least already have the warhead tech) to fit the missile tubes we have/will have and see AUKUS become “AUK” on the side;
b) See if the French will go halves as it’s ruinously expensive for them too, but in so doing see all the existing missile tubes become useless;
c) Switch to some sort of bomber force based around an adapted future cruise on GCAP; or
d) lose our nukes.
*though if we really fall out we can presumably save some cash reverse engineering the existing kit.
Someone posted here that certain aspects (including a very good missile, apparently) of our nuclear deterrent is jointly made/owned with the US, so that may not be a huge problem.
It’s a US. missile relying on US maintenance, in which we have a notional stake that doesn’t matter if Trump doesn’t want it to. It’s operationally independent but relies on the US for maintenance.
However, we do understand all the technology, so (as above) could reverse engineer our way into our own maintenance with enough beer tokens, you’d think.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
In all seriousness, I think it would help all concerned if only the media would use better maps! They insist on using Mercator Procections, which distort area sizes closer to the poles. If only they used a Peters Projection, or similar, which showed the actual relative sizes of the land masses, we might all be a little wiser. I know this sounds technical and silly, but it really isn't - the pictures are misleading, but we are so used to them that we can't re-visualise the problems. I reckon DJT really does think that Greenland is Very Big Indeed.
Not the Peters projection. It massively distorts shapes and is very ugly.
The Mollweide projection is, in my view, one of the more optimal ones. (But of course all projections are by their nature compromises, and you should probably use different projections for different purposes. Very few people are navigating the oceans by hand and so very few people should be using the Mercator projection, but I cannot think of a single use for which the Peters projection is optimal. It is horrendous.)
Thanks! Not my Mastermind Subject, but I am glad that someone agrees with me on the general point that some maps, in some circumstances, can give misleading perceptions. We used to have a Peters projection poster of the world in our kitchen (40 years ago, when they were fashionable) and it did help to challenge lazy thinking - Africa was much "bigger", and Greenland much "smaller", I recall.
Tony Benn used to have a map of the UK in his office which was upside-down. The place names were the right way up, but the land mass was inverted. he said that it made him think about the geography and relative locations differently, when he was the Technology Minister.
I wonder what Starmer is going to say this morning
Don't Panic!
But is this more Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Dad's Army?
Can't be Hitchhiker's Guide, Trump may be as unpleasant as the Vogons but they explicitly aren't actually evil, merely bureaucratic, officious and callous.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Realistically, only from the French. Whose missiles don’t fit our launch tubes - they’re too wide. I don’t think any other allay makes sub-surface submarine launched ICBMs?
Fortunately, we do still (just about) have a functioning rocket industry. Standing up our own missile program is doable. It’s just painfully expensive at a time when the pressures on government spending are very great & it will probably take years for such a program to produce a functioning system. Polaris & Trident were a great gift from the US to the UK - we piggy backed on their research & development for decades, but they also bound us very tightly into the US defence establishment. The French put independence first & we didn’t & are now having to deal with the consequences of that decision.
My understanding is we make a significant contribution to their subs too via reactors, tubes and all sorts of other bits and pieces. Still lopsided of course. I'd be impressed if Starmer and Badenoch came to a quick accord this week and jointly announced we'd be bringing all that in-house over the next 10 years - as you say, we probably have the skills required to do it, just not the cash or time.
What the fuck do Starmer's critics expect him to say? "I have to tell the nation. We are now at war with the USA"?
I have more sympathy than most with his position, and reckon he's doing about as well as could, diplomatically. He is dealing with a deranged POTUS who has an equally, if not even more, deranged back-up team. But they are also fickle and inconsistent, so nothing is set in stone other than their lunacy. As a result, knee-jerk responses are dangerous and likely to be overtaken by events. And while I might agree with Ed Davey's rhetoric, there's a huge difference between being in opposition and being in power.
Absolutely. As a country we now find ourselves in a terrible situation due to our dependency on the US - a policy for which governments of both colour are to blame. If only we had followed a path akin to that taken by France and maintained a more independent relationship.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
This is all pretty abject.
You tell a bully to f*ck off. You don’t fawn over him.
I understand the intensity of feeling but Trump has the power to enter a trade war with untold consquences and of course withdraw from NATO
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
Sure Trump is determined, but that doesn't mean we have to give way.
We can make it clear to America that if they go ahead with this there will be consequences, and if they don't want to suffer those consequences then they should deal with Trump.
Then it's up to America to decide.
The tactic of fawning over Trump and giving him everything he wants to placate him, as though he's an omnipotent Dudley Dursley, has to stop. It doesn't work.
An annoucement at WEF that a coalition of a dozen European countries intends to develop a new common independent nuclear deterrent, would probably make the news Stateside.
It would also make news domestically. The Greens, Lib Dems, half the Labour Party, the Nationalists, the Churches, the luvvies and the bien-pensants would wet themselves.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
This is all pretty abject.
You tell a bully to f*ck off. You don’t fawn over him.
But isn't that pretty much what they've done over Greenland, just in more measured, diplomatic language?
They're discussing the aftermath of Starmer's speech. They've got an American woman explaining why Trump is such a genius. You couldn't make it up. Peter Oborne is giving her both barrels but it's unnecessary. Only sociopaths could be in America/Trump's corner at the moment. Oborne is making a good case why trump should be on trial. He also reminded her that the arrest of Maduro wasn't casualty free. There were 100 deaths allbeit not American ones.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
This is all pretty abject.
You tell a bully to f*ck off. You don’t fawn over him.
I understand the intensity of feeling but Trump has the power to enter a trade war with untold consquences and of course withdraw from NATO
If Trump wants to start a trade war and withdraw from NATO, he will just do it. No amount of appeasing him will stop that. The man acts entirely on his whims and the latest wheeze re Greenland shows appealing to his ego only buys time.
As others have said, if Starmer is playing the long game and trying to keep the US sweet while he develops an alternative (with Europe, for instance) fair play. I am concerned he is not being radical enough on that front though, and this is a time that calls for big, fundamental decisions.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Not ICBMs, no. The choices wound be:
a) Develop our own at a cost in the tens of billions* (thanking god we at least already have the warhead tech) to fit the missile tubes we have/will have and see AUKUS become “AUK” on the side;
b) See if the French will go halves as it’s ruinously expensive for them too, but in so doing see all the existing missile tubes become useless;
c) Switch to some sort of bomber force based around an adapted future cruise on GCAP; or
d) lose our nukes.
*though if we really fall out we can presumably save some cash reverse engineering the existing kit.
Someone posted here that certain aspects (including a very good missile, apparently) of our nuclear deterrent is jointly made/owned with the US, so that may not be a huge problem.
It’s a US. missile relying on US maintenance, in which we have a notional stake that doesn’t matter if Trump doesn’t want it to. It’s operationally independent but relies on the US for maintenance.
However, we do understand all the technology, so (as above) could reverse engineer our way into our own maintenance with enough beer tokens, you’d think.
We could.
The guidance and electronics is also not that big a deal - see D-17B. Which would fit on a single chip, today - and that using the basic lithographic process we can actually do in this country. Ballistic missiles don't need advanced computers - the clever tech is elsewhere.
If we cut off the usual Big & Expensive attitude, solid rocket motors are not actually that expensive. See in the US, where various new companies are going through the defence industry like a chainsaw through cheese. Sometimes offering solid rocket motors at an order of magnitude lower price than the incumbents.
So far. there, they have been kept out of the big SRM contacts - see the slow motion comedy of the Minuteman replacement. But "Stay in your lane" only works for so long, when the lower cost is there to tempt people.
Definite signs that Starmer is softening the country up for a rejoin or something very much like it. An unusually good and positive press conference by Starmer. He's impressive.
How would that help us, and how it help the EU, deal with the lunatic in the White House?
It would make the EU more powerful and more competitive with the US
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
I think Isam/Frayne are wrong. Tory oblivion isn't even close, and is substantially less close than it was when Reform peaked and was getting 34/35%. At this moment if the Tories went up 4 or 5 points and Reform went down the same, Tories would be in the driving seat. Something like this will be the case by the end of 2026 IMO. Increasingly Reform look like a bunch of untalented chancers who won't criticise Trump even as he shows himself to be our adversary. Their high profile converts are an unimpressive bunch of carpetbaggers, unworthy of respect.
The roughly 50% of voters who will vote 'right of centre' are very much in play.
Sorry, it looked like I made the opening comment (‘Hard to argue…’), but I was just reposting an article from a tweet by James Johnson. I don’t think the Tories are finished, I am quite positive about Badenoch’s leadership.
I wonder what Starmer is going to say this morning
Don't Panic!
But is this more Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Dad's Army?
Can't be Hitchhiker's Guide, Trump may be as unpleasant as the Vogons but they explicitly aren't actually evil, merely bureaucratic, officious and callous.
Trump is all of the above and worse.
Trump is not bureaucratic. He is the very opposite of bureaucratic: impulsive behaviour with no recourse to a rulebook or code of practice.
What the fuck do Starmer's critics expect him to say? "I have to tell the nation. We are now at war with the USA"?
I have more sympathy than most with his position, and reckon he's doing about as well as could, diplomatically. He is dealing with a deranged POTUS who has an equally, if not even more, deranged back-up team. But they are also fickle and inconsistent, so nothing is set in stone other than their lunacy. As a result, knee-jerk responses are dangerous and likely to be overtaken by events. And while I might agree with Ed Davey's rhetoric, there's a huge difference between being in opposition and being in power.
Absolutely. As a country we now find ourselves in a terrible situation due to our dependency on the US - a policy for which governments of both colour are to blame. If only we had followed a path akin to that taken by France and maintained a more independent relationship.
Seems only yesterday we were worrying about a few bits of 5G kit from China. Seems to be no more than diversion from being totally shafted by the US but plus ca change.
The Don-Roe doctrine and Trump's attitude to Russia, China and the EU seems, at heart, to acknowledge the US is in terminal decline and could now only be considered as a regional power rather than a Superpower. For all the bluster, they are not really achieving anything other than collecting a few baubles (which appear to be very, very important)
What the fuck do Starmer's critics expect him to say? "I have to tell the nation. We are now at war with the USA"?
I have more sympathy than most with his position, and reckon he's doing about as well as could, diplomatically. He is dealing with a deranged POTUS who has an equally, if not even more, deranged back-up team. But they are also fickle and inconsistent, so nothing is set in stone other than their lunacy. As a result, knee-jerk responses are dangerous and likely to be overtaken by events. And while I might agree with Ed Davey's rhetoric, there's a huge difference between being in opposition and being in power.
Agree. EuroNATO is in a completely new situation, with new rules, which we don't know what they are yet. When asked whether USA might use military force against a NATO ally he said 'I don't think so'. Put in ordinary language, he didn't rule it out. If he wanted to he would have said 'No'.
Davey has a freedom caused by there being no chance of his being PM. That's fine, within limits. Only two other parties along with Labour could lead the next government. The Tories are sticking loyally to supporting the government under external threat. But it is glaringly obvious that Reform are as much supportive of Trump and Trumpism as they are supportive of the government in this. This is going to haunt them. And there are more to come. The non barking Reform dog is fascinating.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Not ICBMs, no. The choices wound be:
a) Develop our own at a cost in the tens of billions* (thanking god we at least already have the warhead tech) to fit the missile tubes we have/will have and see AUKUS become “AUK” on the side;
b) See if the French will go halves as it’s ruinously expensive for them too, but in so doing see all the existing missile tubes become useless;
c) Switch to some sort of bomber force based around an adapted future cruise on GCAP; or
d) lose our nukes.
*though if we really fall out we can presumably save some cash reverse engineering the existing kit.
Someone posted here that certain aspects (including a very good missile, apparently) of our nuclear deterrent is jointly made/owned with the US, so that may not be a huge problem.
It’s a US. missile relying on US maintenance, in which we have a notional stake that doesn’t matter if Trump doesn’t want it to. It’s operationally independent but relies on the US for maintenance.
However, we do understand all the technology, so (as above) could reverse engineer our way into our own maintenance with enough beer tokens, you’d think.
We could.
The guidance and electronics is also not that big a deal - see D-17B. Which would fit on a single chip, today - and that using the basic lithographic process we can actually do in this country. Ballistic missiles don't need advanced computers - the clever tech is elsewhere.
If we cut off the usual Big & Expensive attitude, solid rocket motors are not actually that expensive. See in the US, where various new companies are going through the defence industry like a chainsaw through cheese. Sometimes offering solid rocket motors at an order of magnitude lower price than the incumbents.
So far. there, they have been kept out of the big SRM contacts - see the slow motion comedy of the Minuteman replacement. But "Stay in your lane" only works for so long, when the lower cost is there to tempt people.
Yep, give Palmer Luckey a billion or two, and he’ll likely be able to set up a team in the UK to make rockets.
For the non-nuclear ones, develop what the Ukranians are already doing very well in the face of an actual war.
But yes, no Big And Expensive, no cost-plus contracts, and with payment on delivery milestones.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
Sure Trump is determined, but that doesn't mean we have to give way.
We can make it clear to America that if they go ahead with this there will be consequences, and if they don't want to suffer those consequences then they should deal with Trump.
Then it's up to America to decide.
The tactic of fawning over Trump and giving him everything he wants to placate him, as though he's an omnipotent Dudley Dursley, has to stop. It doesn't work.
An annoucement at WEF that a coalition of a dozen European countries intends to develop a new common independent nuclear deterrent, would probably make the news Stateside.
It would also make news domestically. The Greens, Lib Dems, half the Labour Party, the Nationalists, the Churches, the luvvies and the bien-pensants would wet themselves.
I wonder what Starmer is going to say this morning
Don't Panic!
But is this more Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Dad's Army?
Can't be Hitchhiker's Guide, Trump may be as unpleasant as the Vogons but they explicitly aren't actually evil, merely bureaucratic, officious and callous.
Trump is all of the above and worse.
Trump is not bureaucratic. He is the very opposite of bureaucratic: impulsive behaviour with no recourse to a rulebook or code of practice.
Fair point, even bureaucrats don't want to be besmirched by being compared to Trump. 🤣
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
Sure Trump is determined, but that doesn't mean we have to give way.
We can make it clear to America that if they go ahead with this there will be consequences, and if they don't want to suffer those consequences then they should deal with Trump.
Then it's up to America to decide.
The tactic of fawning over Trump and giving him everything he wants to placate him, as though he's an omnipotent Dudley Dursley, has to stop. It doesn't work.
An annoucement at WEF that a coalition of a dozen European countries intends to develop a new common independent nuclear deterrent, would probably make the news Stateside.
It would also make news domestically. The Greens, Lib Dems, half the Labour Party, the Nationalists, the Churches, the luvvies and the bien-pensants would wet themselves.
I'd be in favour, and I'm pretty sure most of my fellow Lib Dems would also be in favour.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
What the fuck do Starmer's critics expect him to say? "I have to tell the nation. We are now at war with the USA"?
I have more sympathy than most with his position, and reckon he's doing about as well as could, diplomatically. He is dealing with a deranged POTUS who has an equally, if not even more, deranged back-up team. But they are also fickle and inconsistent, so nothing is set in stone other than their lunacy. As a result, knee-jerk responses are dangerous and likely to be overtaken by events. And while I might agree with Ed Davey's rhetoric, there's a huge difference between being in opposition and being in power.
Agree. EuroNATO is in a completely new situation, with new rules, which we don't know what they are yet. When asked whether USA might use military force against a NATO ally he said 'I don't think so'. Put in ordinary language, he didn't rule it out. If he wanted to he would have said 'No'.
Davey has a freedom caused by there being no chance of his being PM. That's fine, within limits. Only two other parties along with Labour could lead the next government. The Tories are sticking loyally to supporting the government under external threat. But it is glaringly obvious that Reform are as much supportive of Trump and Trumpism as they are supportive of the government in this. This is going to haunt them. And there are more to come. The non barking Reform dog is fascinating.
The mistake Starmer made here was doing an "address to the nation" when he didn't have anything to say. All it did was highlight our vulnerabilities rather than our strengths. What was the point?
The two other options were a joint statement from himself, Badenoch and Davey on the future of our nuclear deterrent (with bonus of making Farage look like a quisling), or a joint statement from Copenhagen alongside the other countries Trump has threatened (plus Carney if he could be persuaded).
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Rubbish, Europe has plenty of powers and ability to wreck US economy, start dealing with Chinese as special relationship , etc , etc , just needs backbone. Sounded like Macron yesterday has one and said EU will stiff the clowns, no chance Starmer will ever grow a pair so UK will continue butt licking.
Starmer is in a difficult position but this rather tedious, technocratic triangulation isn’t the message for the moment. He’d have been better issuing a statement if this was all he was going to say.
Claiming that Starmer "a close relationship with the US delivers concrete outcomes for the UK" is a crock of shit in this context, when Trump is about to impose an additional 10% tariff on us over Greenland.
He's freaking out about Trident. Tip of his tongue on the press questions. Some Admiral has laid it out to him and, to be fair, the first job is preserving the UK and no PM can put that at risk.
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Surely we can buy other missiles?
Not ICBMs, no. The choices wound be:
a) Develop our own at a cost in the tens of billions* (thanking god we at least already have the warhead tech) to fit the missile tubes we have/will have and see AUKUS become “AUK” on the side;
b) See if the French will go halves as it’s ruinously expensive for them too, but in so doing see all the existing missile tubes become useless;
c) Switch to some sort of bomber force based around an adapted future cruise on GCAP; or
d) lose our nukes.
*though if we really fall out we can presumably save some cash reverse engineering the existing kit.
Someone posted here that certain aspects (including a very good missile, apparently) of our nuclear deterrent is jointly made/owned with the US, so that may not be a huge problem.
It’s a US. missile relying on US maintenance, in which we have a notional stake that doesn’t matter if Trump doesn’t want it to. It’s operationally independent but relies on the US for maintenance.
However, we do understand all the technology, so (as above) could reverse engineer our way into our own maintenance with enough beer tokens, you’d think.
We could.
The guidance and electronics is also not that big a deal - see D-17B. Which would fit on a single chip, today - and that using the basic lithographic process we can actually do in this country. Ballistic missiles don't need advanced computers - the clever tech is elsewhere.
If we cut off the usual Big & Expensive attitude, solid rocket motors are not actually that expensive. See in the US, where various new companies are going through the defence industry like a chainsaw through cheese. Sometimes offering solid rocket motors at an order of magnitude lower price than the incumbents.
So far. there, they have been kept out of the big SRM contacts - see the slow motion comedy of the Minuteman replacement. But "Stay in your lane" only works for so long, when the lower cost is there to tempt people.
Yep, give Palmer Luckey a billion or two, and he’ll likely be able to set up a team in the UK to make rockets.
For the non-nuclear ones, develop what the Ukranians are already doing very well in the face of an actual war.
But yes, no Big And Expensive, no cost-plus contracts, and with payment on delivery milestones.
Add in the factor that, for 99% of use cases (and almost all use cases we could live to comment on afterwards) you don’t actually need a strategic nuclear deterrent to work. All you need is for no adversary to have solid evidence that it doesn’t.
Quoting David Robjant, from Twi/X..... "At this point UK official belief that the United States of America is an ally is somewhat like the belief that Orvill can fly. I mean I do understand that it is the premise of the whole sodding show. But mainly for comedic effect."
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
“Across Westminster, people are desperately talking up Badenoch. This simply isn’t reflected in polls on voting intention, and the party is heading towards oblivion.”
I fear so. Not certain, sure, but there's definite complacency.
25 is the magic number.
That’s the minimum NESV the Tories need to get in May or Badenoch’s in trouble.
No, as long as the Tories are ahead of Labour, even 20% to 19% in NEV then Kemi will be fine even if Reform still are first.
If the Tories come third in May behind Reform and Labour in NEV then Kemi may well face a VONC and replacement by Cleverly (who now Jenrick has gone is her main leadership rival, even if more loyal to her than BobbyJ ever was)
Technical question - in view of the limited number of local authorities holding elections in May, and considering the distorting influences of London, Scotland and Wales, what are the plausible polling numbers in these circumstances? Even if the Tories were popular, I think 25% from that particular electorate would be a bit of a stretch.
On the night, given Labour will likely win London (ahead of Reform and the Tories in the capital) and beat the Tories in Scotland and Wales and the big city councils up then in terms of councillors and councils and MSPs and MSs won then Starmer will likely be able to say Labour are the main alternative to Reform now.
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Thanks. I think the CCHQ spinners are going to have to work very hard to claim any sort of statistical superiority after the May elections - there simply aren't enough Conservative-voting heartlands going to the polls to give them a decent showing in the final calculations. That's tough on Badenoch - she's been a fairly "lucky general" up until now, but in May she is fighting in territories that are distinctly hostile to her. Even getting to a poor second place is going to be a bit of a stretch.
The reality is that the Tories could finish fifth in both devolved elections, 25% is the minimum in the NESV to show the party isn’t going backwards since 2024, that’s what two Tory MPs have told me independently.
They’d still have to be totally crazy to come for Kemi after the locals.
She’s clearly getting more airtime in a difficult situation at the moment, comes across as sensible as others towards the fringes depart for Reform.
And the biggest question of all, with whom would you replace her that could hit the ground running and do a better job?
Yes. It would be the height of stupidity to remove Badenoch this year - personally I think they should keep her til the GE now.
She’s not everyone’s cup of tea, she’s made mistakes, and she’s got a long way to go if she wants to lead the Tories back to relevance. But she is right that there’s no short term fix, and a panicked change of leader will set them back even more, not less. Do the Tories really want to reinforce the idea they go through ritual leader-sacrifice every 1-3 years right now? How does that help them?
You are basically right but if the voters put the Tories in 3rd in NEV in May for a second consecutive local elections year, ie not only behind Reform but behind Labour too then it will be clear that sadly the voters have made up their mind on Kemi, she is an also ran not a potential PM or even LOTO.
Then Tory MPs would likely hold a VONC in her or she would resign, with Cleverly likely replacing her who would be able to better pitch for the centre ground between Reform and Labour and anti Reform tactical votes in Tory held seats and to hold 2024 Sunak voters than she has been in that eventuality.
So Kemi has to ensure the Tories are at least second, ahead of Labour on NEV in May, to survive
Comments
I have no idea how antagonising Trump gains favour with him and I just have this feeling that Trump has all the cards
Let me be clear, this crisis is unique in my 82 years in so much as we cannot trust the US anymore, sadly
May I ask what would you want Starmer and Europe to do ?
Donald Trump has invited Vladimir Putin to the Gaza "peace board," the Kremlin says.
Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, says Russia is "studying all details of the offer" and "hopes for discussions with Washington to go over all the nuances," per RIA Novosti.
The roughly 50% of voters who will vote 'right of centre' are very much in play.
1. In the sort of diplomatic language that one should expect from the Secretary of State.
Or
2. In the crazy language of Trump’s Tweets, telling him that if he’s not careful he’s going to start World War III with Europe.
If it were me, I’d try something like the best way to get control over Greenland is to put Russia so far back in their box that no-one needs to worry about them for the next few years; which could also serve keeping China busy looking at Vladivostok and not at Taiwan.
I'm no longer annoyed or frustrated by Starmer's failures. I'm ashamed of them.
Starmer's prob is that this sounds like a holding speech in the midst of a huge realignment (or, more accurately,a nutter President causing chaos). Fair dos. But ppl will also hear very Starmer-esque denial of the need for agility & imagination. The moment demands v. rare skills (that he hasn't got)
@jwsidders.bsky.social
Fair summation. Everything Starmer said was right. The way he said it was totally wrong. Very, very Starmer!
However if after the academics do their number crunching in terms of what it means in NEV UK wide (given most of the more Tory English shires aren't voting in May) the Tories are second ahead of Labour Kemi should be OK. As you say on the night 25% is near impossible for the Tories on the mainly urban, Scottish and Welsh seats up
Starmer is something else. I can’t think of anything that describes him without offending innocent lifeforms. Or come to that useful inanimate objects.
BREAKING: Keir Starmer declines to endorse Trump’s Board of Peace
Says he’s talking with allies about the terms but declines to say he’ll join or pay the $1 billion fee revealed by Bloomberg over the weekend
It comes as the Kremlin says today Trump has invited Putin to join
It's the one bit of additional defence spending that is fully justifiable - a fully independent deterrent that doesn't require a trip to Kings Bay every 5-10 years.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Why are Reform silent about Greenland?
Politically she can also tie it in to Brexit, and the way in which the EU tries to squeeze the maximum out of the UK at every opportunity (e.g. over fishing and the absurd demand to pay £bns to join the EU defence scheme), to make it about Britain standing up against all forms of coercion, in a way that Starmer could not.
And that's just the start. Investment into these areas costs money. But it also creates jobs, further investment, regeneration - all of which boost the economy and thus tax receipts.
Putting it bluntly before someone asks "how can we afford this", how can we afford *not* to do this?
https://discoverulsterscots.com/emigration-influence/america/scotch-irish-america-timeline/leaders-nations
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
That's why it makes sense for Starmer to play for time. But he does actually then have to use that time to do things.
You'd probably end up cutting the subs in half and replacing the missile compartment. Then there would be all the gear to control the missiles. Multiple billions and years per boat.
It would probably be cheaper to develop a missile ourselves - see Italy and Alpha. It could be design and built to size, and could be designed to use at least some of the existing physical systems.
Stuff like that takes years, though.
We should have started some time back, but the next best time is now.
Scrap the stuff that doesn't matter to help pay for it.
We don't, for example, need an MBT, and Challenger is in any event already obsolete.
https://www.twz.com/land/our-first-glimpse-at-the-m1e3-abrams-next-gen-tank-demonstrator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRKaAiBy-Go
The Mollweide projection is, in my view, one of the more optimal ones. (But of course all projections are by their nature compromises, and you should probably use different projections for different purposes. Very few people are navigating the oceans by hand and so very few people should be using the Mercator projection, but I cannot think of a single use for which the Peters projection is optimal. It is horrendous.)
So if you followed my idea, you'd have a rich, independent Greenland that loved the US and was completely dependent on it. All done with smiles. And you have all the mineral wealth. While the locals would be cheering on a deal that is good for them as well.
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
She’s clearly getting more airtime in a difficult situation at the moment, comes across as sensible as others towards the fringes depart for Reform.
And the biggest question of all, with whom would you replace her that could hit the ground running and do a better job?
Edit: and as others have mentioned, the poor Labour performance is also going to be in the headlines.
a) Develop our own at a cost in the tens of billions* (thanking god we at least already have the warhead tech) to fit the missile tubes we have/will have and see AUKUS become “AUK” on the side;
b) See if the French will go halves as it’s ruinously expensive for them too, but in so doing see all the existing missile tubes become useless;
c) Switch to some sort of bomber force based around an adapted future cruise on GCAP; or
d) lose our nukes.
*though if we really fall out we can presumably save some cash reverse engineering the existing kit.
Without some massive and urgent investment into a copy of those missiles we're stuck. The deterrent is only independent between missile servicing periods.
Wellington: "I'm sending Nelson to Alaska, in case Bony [Bonaparte] should try and trick us by coming via the North Pole."
I'm not particularly advocating one course or another but there's clearly a benefit to Ukraine to keeping US support going for as long as they can.
I have more sympathy than most with his position, and reckon he's doing about as well as could, diplomatically. He is dealing with a deranged POTUS who has an equally, if not even more, deranged back-up team. But they are also fickle and inconsistent, so nothing is set in stone other than their lunacy. As a result, knee-jerk responses are dangerous and likely to be overtaken by events. And while I might agree with Ed Davey's rhetoric, there's a huge difference between being in opposition and being in power.
You tell a bully to f*ck off. You don’t fawn over him.
We can make it clear to America that if they go ahead with this there will be consequences, and if they don't want to suffer those consequences then they should deal with Trump.
Then it's up to America to decide.
The tactic of fawning over Trump and giving him everything he wants to placate him, as though he's an omnipotent Dudley Dursley, has to stop. It doesn't work.
She’s not everyone’s cup of tea, she’s made mistakes, and she’s got a long way to go if she wants to lead the Tories back to relevance. But she is right that there’s no short term fix, and a panicked change of leader will set them back even more, not less. Do the Tories really want to reinforce the idea they go through ritual leader-sacrifice every 1-3 years right now? How does that help them?
Fortunately, we do still (just about) have a functioning rocket industry. Standing up our own missile program is doable. It’s just painfully expensive at a time when the pressures on government spending are very great & it will probably take years for such a program to produce a functioning system. Polaris & Trident were a great gift from the US to the UK - we piggy backed on their research & development for decades, but they also bound us very tightly into the US defence establishment. The French put independence first & we didn’t & are now having to deal with the consequences of that decision.
Actually I would replace her with Sir Jeremy Hunt but that’s not going to happen.
However, we do understand all the technology, so (as above) could reverse engineer our way into our own maintenance with enough beer tokens, you’d think.
Tony Benn used to have a map of the UK in his office which was upside-down. The place names were the right way up, but the land mass was inverted. he said that it made him think about the geography and relative locations differently, when he was the Technology Minister.
Trump is all of the above and worse.
They're discussing the aftermath of Starmer's speech. They've got an American woman explaining why Trump is such a genius. You couldn't make it up. Peter Oborne is giving her both barrels but it's unnecessary. Only sociopaths could be in America/Trump's corner at the moment. Oborne is making a good case why trump should be on trial. He also reminded her that the arrest of Maduro wasn't casualty free. There were 100 deaths allbeit not American ones.
As others have said, if Starmer is playing the long game and trying to keep the US sweet while he develops an alternative (with Europe, for instance) fair play. I am concerned he is not being radical enough on that front though, and this is a time that calls for big, fundamental decisions.
The guidance and electronics is also not that big a deal - see D-17B. Which would fit on a single chip, today - and that using the basic lithographic process we can actually do in this country. Ballistic missiles don't need advanced computers - the clever tech is elsewhere.
If we cut off the usual Big & Expensive attitude, solid rocket motors are not actually that expensive. See in the US, where various new companies are going through the defence industry like a chainsaw through cheese. Sometimes offering solid rocket motors at an order of magnitude lower price than the incumbents.
So far. there, they have been kept out of the big SRM contacts - see the slow motion comedy of the Minuteman replacement. But "Stay in your lane" only works for so long, when the lower cost is there to tempt people.
The Don-Roe doctrine and Trump's attitude to Russia, China and the EU seems, at heart, to acknowledge the US is in terminal decline and could now only be considered as a regional power rather than a Superpower. For all the bluster, they are not really achieving anything other than collecting a few baubles (which appear to be very, very important)
Davey has a freedom caused by there being no chance of his being PM. That's fine, within limits. Only two other parties along with Labour could lead the next government. The Tories are sticking loyally to supporting the government under external threat. But it is glaringly obvious that Reform are as much supportive of Trump and Trumpism as they are supportive of the government in this. This is going to haunt them. And there are more to come. The non barking Reform dog is fascinating.
For the non-nuclear ones, develop what the Ukranians are already doing very well in the face of an actual war.
But yes, no Big And Expensive, no cost-plus contracts, and with payment on delivery milestones.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
The two other options were a joint statement from himself, Badenoch and Davey on the future of our nuclear deterrent (with bonus of making Farage look like a quisling), or a joint statement from Copenhagen alongside the other countries Trump has threatened (plus Carney if he could be persuaded).
"At this point UK official belief that the United States of America is an ally is somewhat like the belief that Orvill can fly. I mean I do understand that it is the premise of the whole sodding show. But mainly for comedic effect."
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
Then Tory MPs would likely hold a VONC in her or she would resign, with Cleverly likely replacing her who would be able to better pitch for the centre ground between Reform and Labour and anti Reform tactical votes in Tory held seats and to hold 2024 Sunak voters than she has been in that eventuality.
So Kemi has to ensure the Tories are at least second, ahead of Labour on NEV in May, to survive