From the source that had the Rosindell story first
EXCLUSIVE: Five Conservative MPs have formally opened discussions with Nigel Farage about defecting to Reform UK, including former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
As revealed tonight on Dan Wootton Outspoken, five Conservative MPs contacted Nigel Farage over the weekend to negotiate a potential defection to Reform UK. The most prominent figure among them is former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
While Zia Yusuf and Nigel Farage have publicly stated that the party will not accept any further Tory defections after 7 May, it can also be revealed that Reform UK remains willing to welcome as many Conservative defectors as possible — even if that means extending beyond the previously announced deadline.
Suella Braverman has been considering a move to Reform UK for several months. However, the recent defections of Andrew Rosindell and Robert Jenrick have significantly increased her inclination to make the switch.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on tariffs: “The American government knows that we could respond from our side as well.
“I do not want that, but if it becomes necessary, we will of course protect our European interests—and also our German national interests.”
Merz: “The economy in the United States is not performing as well as the American government expected a year ago.
“In my assessment, this also has something to do with tariff policy.”
There was a report just today that Americans pay 96% of Trump's tariffs, and exporters are only paying 4% by adjusting their prices. This is one area where Starmer is right, there's no point harming UK consumers and businesses by reciprocating. We have to be much smarter than Trump when retaliating.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
Which is what I expect.
On current polling the Tories are below the last GE and likely to lose further seats. We are mid term against an unpopular government so that may well be as good as it gets for the Tories.
I think the Tories would be doing well to be over 100 seats and being the third or fourth biggest party is very possible (as it is for any of Labour, Reform, Con, LD).
From the source that had the Rosindell story first
EXCLUSIVE: Five Conservative MPs have formally opened discussions with Nigel Farage about defecting to Reform UK, including former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
As revealed tonight on Dan Wootton Outspoken, five Conservative MPs contacted Nigel Farage over the weekend to negotiate a potential defection to Reform UK. The most prominent figure among them is former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
While Zia Yusuf and Nigel Farage have publicly stated that the party will not accept any further Tory defections after 7 May, it can also be revealed that Reform UK remains willing to welcome as many Conservative defectors as possible — even if that means extending beyond the previously announced deadline.
Suella Braverman has been considering a move to Reform UK for several months. However, the recent defections of Andrew Rosindell and Robert Jenrick have significantly increased her inclination to make the switch.
They're right about the low-budget set. I recognised my hairdryer doing duty as a piece of hi-tech instrumentation.
Now the game isn't about attracting subscribers but getting them to remain - attached to the fact that the video version of a podcast both retains audiences (and gives you 2+ hours of watching a week) more than anything else - it's not surprising that the money for drama is slowly disappearing.
Finding series that can be produced on a few sets at a lower cost is the currently the main game in the TV industry.
That type of entertainment isn't my thing any longer, but I wonder whether they're also interested in repeat viewings, as when people buy boxed sets of series (or used to). I didn't realise it at the time, but apparently it had a kind of cult-following, which might make a reboot an attractive commercial prospect.
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
You're a fool if you think Brexit didn't weaken Europe. But whatever.
Is there much difference between 3/10 strength before Brexit and 2/10 after? Europe was weak before and is still weak after. We've underinvested in defence for decades, got bogged down in which country the 27 jobs that the pitiful spending would be located, cut regular military spending to the bone across the continent, kept cutting even after 2014 showed Putin was no paper tiger. We even dithered over renewing our nuclear deterrent for years before the idiot CND types were shouted down, I still remember the whole "subs but no nukes" nonsense being offered as a compromise.
So maybe technically you're right, Brexit weakened Europe but you're complaining that the park bench is burning while the whole forest around it has already been burned down. It's not and will never be a game changer. Trump gave us 8 years of notice to saddle up and cut welfare to increase defence spending and we ignored his warnings and now we're paying the price.
Trump’s so-called ‘Board of Peace’ turns out to have nothing to do with Gaza after all. It now looks like some kind of global conflict resolution body to replace the UN. It will cost £1bn to join and be chaired by Trump, who would have extensive powers, including a veto over decisions he doesn’t like.
It is probably his most radical step yet to replace the post-WW2 global order.
It will also be quite the dictators’ tea party. Putin, Lukashenko (Belarus tyrant) and the dictator of Kazakhstan have all been asked to join!!
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
Which is what I expect.
On current polling the Tories are below the last GE and likely to lose further seats. We are mid term against an unpopular government so that may well be as good as it gets for the Tories.
I think the Tories would be doing well to be over 100 seats and being the third or fourth biggest party is very possible (as it is for any of Labour, Reform, Con, LD).
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on tariffs: “The American government knows that we could respond from our side as well.
“I do not want that, but if it becomes necessary, we will of course protect our European interests—and also our German national interests.”
Merz: “The economy in the United States is not performing as well as the American government expected a year ago.
“In my assessment, this also has something to do with tariff policy.”
There was a report just today that Americans pay 96% of Trump's tariffs, and exporters are only paying 4% by adjusting their prices. This is one area where Starmer is right, there's no point harming UK consumers and businesses by reciprocating. We have to be much smarter than Trump when retaliating.
Don't buy US debt.
They are screwed if we don't. And it doesn't hurt us, because the US is no longer the most stable money on the planet.
Taking over Greenland is not a joke. Trump is sending messages to foreign leaders and making threats that will destroy the most important alliance we have. Are Republicans in Congress and @MarcoRubio really ready to throw NATO away because they’re too afraid to stand up to Trump?
QTWTAIY?
One of the odd things about this is, it's a dire crisis but it all seems so farcical. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
Dr. Strangelove was a documentary.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room!"
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on tariffs: “The American government knows that we could respond from our side as well.
“I do not want that, but if it becomes necessary, we will of course protect our European interests—and also our German national interests.”
Merz: “The economy in the United States is not performing as well as the American government expected a year ago.
“In my assessment, this also has something to do with tariff policy.”
There was a report just today that Americans pay 96% of Trump's tariffs, and exporters are only paying 4% by adjusting their prices. This is one area where Starmer is right, there's no point harming UK consumers and businesses by reciprocating. We have to be much smarter than Trump when retaliating.
Targeted retaliation has been the traditional EU approach. Iconic brands or swing state manufacturers.
They're right about the low-budget set. I recognised my hairdryer doing duty as a piece of hi-tech instrumentation.
Now the game isn't about attracting subscribers but getting them to remain - attached to the fact that the video version of a podcast both retains audiences (and gives you 2+ hours of watching a week) more than anything else - it's not surprising that the money for drama is slowly disappearing.
Finding series that can be produced on a few sets at a lower cost is the currently the main game in the TV industry.
That type of entertainment isn't my thing any longer, but I wonder whether they're also interested in repeat viewings, as when people buy boxed sets of series (or used to). I didn't realise it at the time, but apparently it had a kind of cult-following, which might make a reboot an attractive commercial prospect.
When we were talking about movies yesterday I pointed out that Sci-fi is created for the cinema as what sold before is likely to see again.
Blakes 7 is actually perfect for an experiment for exactly that reason, you can produce it fairly cheaply and name recognition will get enough people to watch the first episode that you can see if it works and whether word of mouth allows a bigger audience to be built.
Whether people watch it multiple times is unknown but I suspect Science Fiction is the sort of thing people may watch multiple times.
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.
You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:
"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).
The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).
The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."
If the US spends just as much on welfare, and (as previously discussed) we know it's less efficient healthcare system means they spend just as much as us, then what are they not spending money on, given that they don't have higher taxes and they spend ~4.5% of GDP on defence?
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
You're a fool if you think Brexit didn't weaken Europe. But whatever.
Is there much difference between 3/10 strength before Brexit and 2/10 after? Europe was weak before and is still weak after. We've underinvested in defence for decades, got bogged down in which country the 27 jobs that the pitiful spending would be located, cut regular military spending to the bone across the continent, kept cutting even after 2014 showed Putin was no paper tiger. We even dithered over renewing our nuclear deterrent for years before the idiot CND types were shouted down, I still remember the whole "subs but no nukes" nonsense being offered as a compromise.
So maybe technically you're right, Brexit weakened Europe but you're complaining that the park bench is burning while the whole forest around it has already been burned down. It's not and will never be a game changer. Trump gave us 8 years of notice to saddle up and cut welfare to increase defence spending and we ignored his warnings and now we're paying the price.
Possibly true.
But it's also possible that our continued involvement in the EU, and the unwasted half decade spent on the unproductive disentangling our cooperative arrangements would have made a bigger difference than you imagine.
I understand that you don't put any real positive value on our membership, but I disagree.
In any event can't know either way, as there's no running that experiment.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
Which is what I expect.
If the Tories get up to 30% and the Lib Dems don't improve share, the Tories might win 5 Lib Dem seats where the majorities are less than 5%.
Trump’s so-called ‘Board of Peace’ turns out to have nothing to do with Gaza after all. It now looks like some kind of global conflict resolution body to replace the UN. It will cost £1bn to join and be chaired by Trump, who would have extensive powers, including a veto over decisions he doesn’t like.
It is probably his most radical step yet to replace the post-WW2 global order.
It will also be quite the dictators’ tea party. Putin, Lukashenko (Belarus tyrant) and the dictator of Kazakhstan have all been asked to join!!
Is there absolutely no constituency for a younger Republican politician to make some political hay out of this and seize the future of their party by repudiating Trump’s views?
The track record of Republican politicians who make a stand against Trump is that they either get driven out of active electoral politics, or they back down and kowtow to the great leader.
This has happened quite recently with Marjorie Taylor Greene on what you would think was vulnerable political territory for Trump over the Epstein Files.
So it doesn't look like there is.
We are seeing on here tonight what drives that behaviour.
There is no reward for moderation.
You just get abuse from both sides, and no support.
Biden was quite good at the bipartisan thing and I think that will be recognised more in the years ahead if we manage to step back from the abyss.
I also thought Badenoch's statement on Greenland was a rare good sign of the potential for Britain not to completely surrender to hyper-partisanship.
I'm very disappointed by the behaviour of several pb regulars tonight.
See the light: be called a f-ing idiot.
This is what drives hyper-partisanship. It emerges from basic human psychology: our tendency toward herd behavior in social groups. It's about as effective as road rage.
What deserves reward, instead, is nuance and thoughtful reflection because that's how we get stable democratic outcomes that most of us can live with, and respect.
I'm not up on my Bible Studies, but it seems obvious that the reason there is "more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents" is because convincing people who disagree with you is The Thing. It's how you spread new ideas, whether that be religion, politics, or anything.
In recent years, on the internet in particular, there's been a growth in the idea that people can't be bothered to explain their point of view, and if other people are too dumb to understand it that's their problem. (I've mostly noticed it on the Left, but that might be just the social media bubbles I move in).
This might be because there are a lot of people willing to have bad faith arguments on the internet, and so it gets exhausting to repeat the same empty debate. And partly this might be because there are bad faith across on the internet, from Russia, Iran, or elsewhere wanting to divide us.
But we do have to fight against it. We have to try and understand each other, even if we still disagree on many things. We have to try and not caricature each others views too much, even though it can be amusing and make winning an argument in our head easier.
If Trump is going to be stopped it needs a lot of current Trump supporters to change their minds. It would be easier if we weren't horrid to people when they did so.
I really want to agree with this. Indeed I do when it comes to fundamental political beliefs and instincts across the whole political spectrum; from someone getting crushed by rent increases and turning to the Greens, to someone with no opportunity for social mobility turning to Reform.
Where it differs with Trump is his personal character, and his stated opinions about democracy (particularly after Jan 6th). I cannot see how someone could vote for him and run the risk of losing the opportunity to vote at all, to vote for him after he mocked that disabled reporter, or sought to overturn an election. Voting for Trump doesn’t just say something about your politics; it says something more fundamental about who you are as a person.
The former Trump supporters I do respect are those who don't just repudiate him for stuff like Greenland, but those who recognise that he is, as an individual, entirely malign - and always has been.
Councillor Kathy Gibbon has joined the Conservatives from Reform handing the Tories control of Bucks County Council. Not earth-shattering but a reminder that political traffic can be two way!
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
Which is what I expect.
If the Tories get up to 30% and the Lib Dems don't improve share, the Tories might win 5 Lib Dem seats where the majorities are less than 5%.
Way more than that. For one thing, to get to 30% they will be taking votes from those who voted LibDem in 2024.
Is there absolutely no constituency for a younger Republican politician to make some political hay out of this and seize the future of their party by repudiating Trump’s views?
The track record of Republican politicians who make a stand against Trump is that they either get driven out of active electoral politics, or they back down and kowtow to the great leader.
This has happened quite recently with Marjorie Taylor Greene on what you would think was vulnerable political territory for Trump over the Epstein Files.
So it doesn't look like there is.
We are seeing on here tonight what drives that behaviour.
There is no reward for moderation.
You just get abuse from both sides, and no support.
Biden was quite good at the bipartisan thing and I think that will be recognised more in the years ahead if we manage to step back from the abyss.
I also thought Badenoch's statement on Greenland was a rare good sign of the potential for Britain not to completely surrender to hyper-partisanship.
I'm very disappointed by the behaviour of several pb regulars tonight.
See the light: be called a f-ing idiot.
This is what drives hyper-partisanship. It emerges from basic human psychology: our tendency toward herd behavior in social groups. It's about as effective as road rage.
What deserves reward, instead, is nuance and thoughtful reflection because that's how we get stable democratic outcomes that most of us can live with, and respect.
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.
You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:
"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).
The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).
The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."
If the US spends just as much on welfare, and (as previously discussed) we know it's less efficient healthcare system means they spend just as much as us, then what are they not spending money on, given that they don't have higher taxes and they spend ~4.5% of GDP on defence?
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on tariffs: “The American government knows that we could respond from our side as well.
“I do not want that, but if it becomes necessary, we will of course protect our European interests—and also our German national interests.”
Merz: “The economy in the United States is not performing as well as the American government expected a year ago.
“In my assessment, this also has something to do with tariff policy.”
There was a report just today that Americans pay 96% of Trump's tariffs, and exporters are only paying 4% by adjusting their prices. This is one area where Starmer is right, there's no point harming UK consumers and businesses by reciprocating. We have to be much smarter than Trump when retaliating.
Some Europeans want to retaliate by raising tariffs - why penalise your own consumers with higher prices? It is they, not the American suppliers who would pay for them.
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
Which is what I expect.
On current polling the Tories are below the last GE and likely to lose further seats. We are mid term against an unpopular government so that may well be as good as it gets for the Tories.
I think the Tories would be doing well to be over 100 seats and being the third or fourth biggest party is very possible (as it is for any of Labour, Reform, Con, LD).
I fully expect Reform to crash and burn.
Perhaps when our national broadcaster's Laura Kuennsberg and Chris Mason stop promoting Reform as a government in waiting the tide may turn.
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
How is that a u-turn?
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
They're right about the low-budget set. I recognised my hairdryer doing duty as a piece of hi-tech instrumentation.
Now the game isn't about attracting subscribers but getting them to remain - attached to the fact that the video version of a podcast both retains audiences (and gives you 2+ hours of watching a week) more than anything else - it's not surprising that the money for drama is slowly disappearing.
Finding series that can be produced on a few sets at a lower cost is the currently the main game in the TV industry.
That type of entertainment isn't my thing any longer, but I wonder whether they're also interested in repeat viewings, as when people buy boxed sets of series (or used to). I didn't realise it at the time, but apparently it had a kind of cult-following, which might make a reboot an attractive commercial prospect.
When we were talking about movies yesterday I pointed out that Sci-fi is created for the cinema as what sold before is likely to see again.
Blakes 7 is actually perfect for an experiment for exactly that reason, you can produce it fairly cheaply and name recognition will get enough people to watch the first episode that you can see if it works and whether word of mouth allows a bigger audience to be built.
Whether people watch it multiple times is unknown but I suspect Science Fiction is the sort of thing people may watch multiple times.
At least half the population were born after the last showing of Blakes 7.
Is there absolutely no constituency for a younger Republican politician to make some political hay out of this and seize the future of their party by repudiating Trump’s views?
The track record of Republican politicians who make a stand against Trump is that they either get driven out of active electoral politics, or they back down and kowtow to the great leader.
This has happened quite recently with Marjorie Taylor Greene on what you would think was vulnerable political territory for Trump over the Epstein Files.
So it doesn't look like there is.
We are seeing on here tonight what drives that behaviour.
There is no reward for moderation.
You just get abuse from both sides, and no support.
Biden was quite good at the bipartisan thing and I think that will be recognised more in the years ahead if we manage to step back from the abyss.
I also thought Badenoch's statement on Greenland was a rare good sign of the potential for Britain not to completely surrender to hyper-partisanship.
I'm very disappointed by the behaviour of several pb regulars tonight.
See the light: be called a f-ing idiot.
This is what drives hyper-partisanship. It emerges from basic human psychology: our tendency toward herd behavior in social groups. It's about as effective as road rage.
What deserves reward, instead, is nuance and thoughtful reflection because that's how we get stable democratic outcomes that most of us can live with, and respect.
I'm not up on my Bible Studies, but it seems obvious that the reason there is "more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents" is because convincing people who disagree with you is The Thing. It's how you spread new ideas, whether that be religion, politics, or anything.
In recent years, on the internet in particular, there's been a growth in the idea that people can't be bothered to explain their point of view, and if other people are too dumb to understand it that's their problem. (I've mostly noticed it on the Left, but that might be just the social media bubbles I move in).
This might be because there are a lot of people willing to have bad faith arguments on the internet, and so it gets exhausting to repeat the same empty debate. And partly this might be because there are bad faith across on the internet, from Russia, Iran, or elsewhere wanting to divide us.
But we do have to fight against it. We have to try and understand each other, even if we still disagree on many things. We have to try and not caricature each others views too much, even though it can be amusing and make winning an argument in our head easier.
If Trump is going to be stopped it needs a lot of current Trump supporters to change their minds. It would be easier if we weren't horrid to people when they did so.
I really want to agree with this. Indeed I do when it comes to fundamental political beliefs and instincts across the whole political spectrum; from someone getting crushed by rent increases and turning to the Greens, to someone with no opportunity for social mobility turning to Reform.
Where it differs with Trump is his personal character, and his stated opinions about democracy (particularly after Jan 6th). I cannot see how someone could vote for him and run the risk of losing the opportunity to vote at all, to vote for him after he mocked that disabled reporter, or sought to overturn an election. Voting for Trump doesn’t just say something about your politics; it says something more fundamental about who you are as a person.
The former Trump supporters I do respect are those who don't just repudiate him for stuff like Greenland, but those who recognise that he is, as an individual, entirely malign - and always has been.
And that's the thing that Dan Hannan has so far failed to do. Yes, he's acknowledged that Trump is acting terribly now, but all the "good people wanted Trump" is self-serving claptrap. Something like this was very likely to happen.
The bible verse says "there's more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents...", not "a sinner who doesn't realise how badly the stuffed up".
Besides, there's some other bloke with a very similar name who made another optimistic prediction that utterly failed to come to pass. Dan something. There were going to be national celebratory fireworks and everything.
They're right about the low-budget set. I recognised my hairdryer doing duty as a piece of hi-tech instrumentation.
Now the game isn't about attracting subscribers but getting them to remain - attached to the fact that the video version of a podcast both retains audiences (and gives you 2+ hours of watching a week) more than anything else - it's not surprising that the money for drama is slowly disappearing.
Finding series that can be produced on a few sets at a lower cost is the currently the main game in the TV industry.
That type of entertainment isn't my thing any longer, but I wonder whether they're also interested in repeat viewings, as when people buy boxed sets of series (or used to). I didn't realise it at the time, but apparently it had a kind of cult-following, which might make a reboot an attractive commercial prospect.
When we were talking about movies yesterday I pointed out that Sci-fi is created for the cinema as what sold before is likely to see again.
Blakes 7 is actually perfect for an experiment for exactly that reason, you can produce it fairly cheaply and name recognition will get enough people to watch the first episode that you can see if it works and whether word of mouth allows a bigger audience to be built.
Whether people watch it multiple times is unknown but I suspect Science Fiction is the sort of thing people may watch multiple times.
I remember watching the first ever episode of Dr Who. That first episode made such an impact the BBC repeated it the next week. That was probably historic in itself.
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
How is that a u-turn?
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
Some Europeans want to retaliate by raising tariffs - why penalise your own consumers with higher prices? It is they, not the American suppliers who would pay for them.
The key is to target products where there is an EU/UK manufactured alternative.
That way consumers don't pay, albeit European producers have a market where they can increase margins.
Councillor Kathy Gibbon has joined the Conservatives from Reform handing the Tories control of Bucks County Council. Not earth-shattering but a reminder that political traffic can be two way!
Who will be the first Reform MP to join the Conservatives? (Probably not Jenrick...)
Councillor Kathy Gibbon has joined the Conservatives from Reform handing the Tories control of Bucks County Council. Not earth-shattering but a reminder that political traffic can be two way!
Who will be the first Reform MP to join the Conservatives? (Probably not Jenrick...)
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
How is that a u-turn?
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
Consultations are an interesting thing.
49.5% of the time they are simply cover to be ignored because you have already decided your narrative/plan/actions and can cherry pick the consultation results to show whatever you want; 49.5% of the time they are simply cover to allow you to climb down and reverse course from what you had already "decided" your narrative/plan/actions were because it's too difficult so it's just easier to give up under the premise of reacting to the prevailing opinion; and 1% of the time they are actually used to gather ideas and views on a specific topic without any built-in preceding bias.
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
How is that a u-turn?
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
Consultations are an interesting thing.
49.5% of the time they are simply cover to be ignored because you have already decided your narrative/plan/actions and can cherry pick the consultation results to show whatever you want; 49.5% of the time they are simply cover to allow you to climb down and reverse course from what you had already "decided" your narrative/plan/actions were because it's too difficult so it's just easier to give up under the premise of reacting to the prevailing opinion; and 1% of the time they are actually used to gather ideas and views on a specific topic without any built-in preceding bias.
So it feels, anyway...
Sometimes consultation are “is there anything here that we’ve missed?” things. They’re not going to change the overall goals, because those have already been fixed, but can change the details of the implementation & often the devil is in the details.
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
You're a fool if you think Brexit didn't weaken Europe. But whatever.
Is there much difference between 3/10 strength before Brexit and 2/10 after? Europe was weak before and is still weak after. We've underinvested in defence for decades, got bogged down in which country the 27 jobs that the pitiful spending would be located, cut regular military spending to the bone across the continent, kept cutting even after 2014 showed Putin was no paper tiger. We even dithered over renewing our nuclear deterrent for years before the idiot CND types were shouted down, I still remember the whole "subs but no nukes" nonsense being offered as a compromise.
So maybe technically you're right, Brexit weakened Europe but you're complaining that the park bench is burning while the whole forest around it has already been burned down. It's not and will never be a game changer. Trump gave us 8 years of notice to saddle up and cut welfare to increase defence spending and we ignored his warnings and now we're paying the price.
Possibly true.
But it's also possible that our continued involvement in the EU, and the unwasted half decade spent on the unproductive disentangling our cooperative arrangements would have made a bigger difference than you imagine.
I understand that you don't put any real positive value on our membership, but I disagree.
In any event can't know either way, as there's no running that experiment.
But we do know because we were members for so long. The best case scenario was a 3/10 which is where we were at. Inside or outside the EU there was never a realistic prospect of moving up to a 7/10 rating which would push us into the "don't fuck with us" territory.
There was never any prospect of an additional 2% of GDP being spent on defense per year for more soldiers, marines, pilots, navigators, sailors and all the equipment, planes and boats to arm them properly. In or out of the EU there was never any prospect of doubling defence spending which is what we would have needed to do across the whole continent to be in a position to tell America, Russia, China and any other country to get fucked.
Even within the remit of defence, the EU has basically nothing to say. European defence has been done via NATO and a few bilateral treaties outside of EU oversight. Hardly any countries were (or are) meeting the minimum 2% spend as mandated by NATO. Are you suggesting that without Brexit the number of countries willing to spend at least 2% would have just magically gone up? It seems unlikely in the extreme.
Is there absolutely no constituency for a younger Republican politician to make some political hay out of this and seize the future of their party by repudiating Trump’s views?
The track record of Republican politicians who make a stand against Trump is that they either get driven out of active electoral politics, or they back down and kowtow to the great leader.
This has happened quite recently with Marjorie Taylor Greene on what you would think was vulnerable political territory for Trump over the Epstein Files.
So it doesn't look like there is.
We are seeing on here tonight what drives that behaviour.
There is no reward for moderation.
You just get abuse from both sides, and no support.
Biden was quite good at the bipartisan thing and I think that will be recognised more in the years ahead if we manage to step back from the abyss.
I also thought Badenoch's statement on Greenland was a rare good sign of the potential for Britain not to completely surrender to hyper-partisanship.
I'm very disappointed by the behaviour of several pb regulars tonight.
See the light: be called a f-ing idiot.
This is what drives hyper-partisanship. It emerges from basic human psychology: our tendency toward herd behavior in social groups. It's about as effective as road rage.
What deserves reward, instead, is nuance and thoughtful reflection because that's how we get stable democratic outcomes that most of us can live with, and respect.
I'm not up on my Bible Studies, but it seems obvious that the reason there is "more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents" is because convincing people who disagree with you is The Thing. It's how you spread new ideas, whether that be religion, politics, or anything.
In recent years, on the internet in particular, there's been a growth in the idea that people can't be bothered to explain their point of view, and if other people are too dumb to understand it that's their problem. (I've mostly noticed it on the Left, but that might be just the social media bubbles I move in).
This might be because there are a lot of people willing to have bad faith arguments on the internet, and so it gets exhausting to repeat the same empty debate. And partly this might be because there are bad faith across on the internet, from Russia, Iran, or elsewhere wanting to divide us.
But we do have to fight against it. We have to try and understand each other, even if we still disagree on many things. We have to try and not caricature each others views too much, even though it can be amusing and make winning an argument in our head easier.
If Trump is going to be stopped it needs a lot of current Trump supporters to change their minds. It would be easier if we weren't horrid to people when they did so.
I really want to agree with this. Indeed I do when it comes to fundamental political beliefs and instincts across the whole political spectrum; from someone getting crushed by rent increases and turning to the Greens, to someone with no opportunity for social mobility turning to Reform.
Where it differs with Trump is his personal character, and his stated opinions about democracy (particularly after Jan 6th). I cannot see how someone could vote for him and run the risk of losing the opportunity to vote at all, to vote for him after he mocked that disabled reporter, or sought to overturn an election. Voting for Trump doesn’t just say something about your politics; it says something more fundamental about who you are as a person.
The former Trump supporters I do respect are those who don't just repudiate him for stuff like Greenland, but those who recognise that he is, as an individual, entirely malign - and always has been.
And that's the thing that Dan Hannan has so far failed to do. Yes, he's acknowledged that Trump is acting terribly now, but all the "good people wanted Trump" is self-serving claptrap. Something like this was very likely to happen.
The bible verse says "there's more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents...", not "a sinner who doesn't realise how badly the stuffed up".
Besides, there's some other bloke with a very similar name who made another optimistic prediction that utterly failed to come to pass. Dan something. There were going to be national celebratory fireworks and everything.
The thing is we don't have to think that Dan Hannan is a nice person in order to agree with him that Trump needs to be stopped.
I'm sure that when British conscripts were in the WWI trenches there were some right pillocks and arseholes in every unit. But needs must. And we're in a needs must situation.
The attitude of not wanting someone's support unless it's offered the right in the right way of a path to division and defeat.
And if we can agree with Dan Hannan on this now then perhaps we can bring him to see how this moment now follows from who Trump is, that it isn't an aberration, and he might agree with us more in the future.
Or we could call him a stupid prick, feel superior about ourselves, and drive him off.
I guess the thing I'm driving at is that - unlike Farage - and despite me quoting the Bible in the first place, we don't actually need people to fully repent or recant. We can welcome them taking one step at a time in the right direction.
Councillor Kathy Gibbon has joined the Conservatives from Reform handing the Tories control of Bucks County Council. Not earth-shattering but a reminder that political traffic can be two way!
And another...
The mayor of Gosport has announced she is leaving the Liberal Democrats and will continue in her role as first citizen as an independent councillor.
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
How is that a u-turn?
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
Labour had previously ruled out a social media ban. Kemi moved on this last week and Labour realised they were being outflanked on a topic that has very wide support so they u-turned.
A lot of good people are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons: to stop Hillary of Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations.
They rightly applauded his toughening of immigration policy. They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic, but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd. But he has plainly now lost his mind . There is no other way of reading “I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize”.
It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than “liberal tears”. Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned.
The best way to read this is: "Myself and others on the fruitier side of the British right are terrified that our previous vocal support for Donald Trump is going to bite us viciously on the arse. There are skin diseases that poll better than he does in the UK."
The only behaviour that will drive is people keeping their heads down or, worse, doubling-down and practicing cognitive dissonance to avoid the risk of being laughed at or vilified by both sides. And reinforcing polarisation as a result. That's the very last thing we need.
What a totally stupid post.
It is and it isn't.
Hannan was still claiming on X today that he'd never supported Trump, which is, being extremely generous, not really true.
I agree that credit is due when someone changes their mind in the face of evidence. But equally, the evidence is also that Scott isn't entirely wrong.
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
How is that a u-turn?
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
Labour had previously ruled out a social media ban. Kemi moved on this last week and Labour realised they were being outflanked on a topic that has very wide support so they u-turned.
I missed them ruling it out. I thought there was a fair bit of talking about talking with the Australians to learn from their experience.
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
How is that a u-turn?
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
Labour had previously ruled out a social media ban. Kemi moved on this last week and Labour realised they were being outflanked on a topic that has very wide support so they u-turned.
I missed them ruling it out. I thought there was a fair bit of talking about talking with the Australians to learn from their experience.
Thanks for the correction!
Kemi led the way on this but apparently labour mps rowed in behind her and Burnham also endorsed the proposals
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
The Under 16 social media ban means the social networks would need to verify that you were 16+ which is very difficult as that means passports (18 is easier for multiple reasons).
Put it this way the implementation will be fun and free VPNs are going to have a field day.
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.
You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:
"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).
The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).
The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."
You still don't seem to realise that it must sum up to 100%.
So its possible for a country to spend more proportionally on both defence and welfare than the UK but less on other things.
Now if you want to increase the proportion of GDP which the UK spends on defence then some other sector will have to fall proportionally.
And if you want to significantly or quickly increase how much the UK spends on defence then the amount spent on other sectors will have to fall in absolute terms not just proportional terms.
Now some of us would suggest that reducing welfare to allow more funding for defence is justifiable.
While others might suggest lower funding for other sectors.
But something will have to lose out in order to increase funding in a different area.
Some Europeans want to retaliate by raising tariffs - why penalise your own consumers with higher prices? It is they, not the American suppliers who would pay for them.
Indeed: the response should be mildly mocking "wait; in revenge you're going to tax American consumers more."
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.
You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:
"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).
The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).
The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."
You still don't seem to realise that it must sum up to 100%.
So its possible for a country to spend more proportionally on both defence and welfare than the UK but less on other things.
Now if you want to increase the proportion of GDP which the UK spends on defence then some other sector will have to fall proportionally.
And if you want to significantly or quickly increase how much the UK spends on defence then the amount spent on other sectors will have to fall in absolute terms not just proportional terms.
Now some of us would suggest that reducing welfare to allow more funding for defence is justifiable.
While others might suggest lower funding for other sectors.
But something will have to lose out in order to increase funding in a different area.
It's always complicated comparing the US with the UK (and other European countries), because so much of US spending is done at the State level. Total Federal spending on education is de minimis, while at the State level it's massive.
Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.
Not the first time either.
Tariffs were simultaneously supposed to fully fund public spending and replace imports with domestic production.
They're right about the low-budget set. I recognised my hairdryer doing duty as a piece of hi-tech instrumentation.
Now the game isn't about attracting subscribers but getting them to remain - attached to the fact that the video version of a podcast both retains audiences (and gives you 2+ hours of watching a week) more than anything else - it's not surprising that the money for drama is slowly disappearing.
Finding series that can be produced on a few sets at a lower cost is the currently the main game in the TV industry.
That type of entertainment isn't my thing any longer, but I wonder whether they're also interested in repeat viewings, as when people buy boxed sets of series (or used to). I didn't realise it at the time, but apparently it had a kind of cult-following, which might make a reboot an attractive commercial prospect.
When we were talking about movies yesterday I pointed out that Sci-fi is created for the cinema as what sold before is likely to see again.
Blakes 7 is actually perfect for an experiment for exactly that reason, you can produce it fairly cheaply and name recognition will get enough people to watch the first episode that you can see if it works and whether word of mouth allows a bigger audience to be built.
Whether people watch it multiple times is unknown but I suspect Science Fiction is the sort of thing people may watch multiple times.
I remember watching the first ever episode of Dr Who. That first episode made such an impact the BBC repeated it the next week. That was probably historic in itself.
You are showing your age in more ways than you think. Even in 1963 the BBC had ways of identifying audience numbers and felt that the lack of audience on November 23rd (i.e. the day after Kennedy's assassination) meant it was worth the BBC showing the first episode again.
If they hadn't I suspect Dr Who wouldn't have had a second series let alone be talked about 60 years later after 2 regenerations.
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.
You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:
"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).
The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).
The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."
You still don't seem to realise that it must sum up to 100%.
So its possible for a country to spend more proportionally on both defence and welfare than the UK but less on other things.
Now if you want to increase the proportion of GDP which the UK spends on defence then some other sector will have to fall proportionally.
And if you want to significantly or quickly increase how much the UK spends on defence then the amount spent on other sectors will have to fall in absolute terms not just proportional terms.
Now some of us would suggest that reducing welfare to allow more funding for defence is justifiable.
While others might suggest lower funding for other sectors.
But something will have to lose out in order to increase funding in a different area.
It's always complicated comparing the US with the UK (and other European countries), because so much of US spending is done at the State level. Total Federal spending on education is de minimis, while at the State level it's massive.
That's the problem with comparing like for like when it comes to countries - various bits of money (literally anything other than defence and foreign relations) is spent at different levels. And working out the average rate of total tax a citizen pays is utterly impossible.
I will continue to assert that the biggest danger of social media is to the over 60's (many of whom credulously believe it all) not the under 16's (who have grown up with it).
Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.
Not the first time either.
Tariffs were simultaneously supposed to fully fund public spending and replace imports with domestic production.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.
I've always been annoyed that the genius of Orwell was misused by such low grade entertainment as Big Brother and Room 101.
I think it’s wrong to fear Trump’s removal cuz ‘Vance is just as bad.’ JD is smarter, sure. But he’s hugely unpopular. It’d be gold for Dems to have enough Rs finally concede Trump is insane & unfit, then have to ride it out for years w/ a smarmy couchfucker Trump cuck few but Peter Theil support
It's little surprise the polling looks good for Badenoch as the immediate comment from the so-called "experts" across the media couldn't have been more complimentary. The fact, a few days on, it now looks like a panicked over-reaction is less important - the first response is the one which resonates so thanks to a largely friendly media, a result for Kemi.
As @HYUFD and others point out, however, the proof will be in the polling and I expect another step forward for the Conservatives as those desperate to see Labour thrown out of Government but equally desperate to see Farage's Prime Ministerial ambitions thwarted have finally worked out talking up the Conservatives is the only way to achieve it - it's not of course.
The truth however is as in 1979 and 2015 the route to a Conservative majority will be over the corpses of Lib Dem MPs and it may be that far from being the electoral backwater I had envisaged, the 70 odd LD constituencies will be the battleground - plenty of water to flow under plenty of bridges I suspect.
There are going to be no shortages of battlegrounds, but I think you are absolutely correct that a Conservative resurgence (even just a modest one) will result in the LibDems losing dozens of seats.
But that does require a Conservative resurgence. So long as the right remains split, then those LibDem MPs aren't going to be feeling *too* worried just yet.
When the Lib Dems won 72 seats, their share was 12.6% and the Tories were on 24.4%. Since then the Lib Dems have dug in, their share is still around 12.6% but the Tories have dropped 5 points to 19.4%.
It will take more than a modest resurgence for the Tories to win back "dozens of seats".
In all but 5 of the 72 seats, the Lib Dems have a 5%+ majority.
It will take an increase of much more than 5% in the Tory share to even win back 5 seats from the Lib Dems. They are dug in. The Tories will need to look elsewhere. Labour are easier pickings which much thinner majorities and a much reduced share in the polls.
I think I understand the conmentariat's frustration with the Lib Dems. They have a game plan involving the 72 seats they hold, and the 20-30(?) remaining blue seats interrupting that golden streak from Devon to Oxfordshire to Sussex. Put like that, it's a mutant version of Blockbusters.
That's almost certainly their most effective strategy. It's also the most honest, since it doesn't really involve trying to provide the next PM. But by golly, it's boring.
If the tories get back up to 30%+ by the next election, the LibDems can wave cheerio to a large number of seats.
Which is what I expect.
On current polling the Tories are below the last GE and likely to lose further seats. We are mid term against an unpopular government so that may well be as good as it gets for the Tories.
I think the Tories would be doing well to be over 100 seats and being the third or fourth biggest party is very possible (as it is for any of Labour, Reform, Con, LD).
I fully expect Reform to crash and burn.
Perhaps when our national broadcaster stop promoting Reform as a government in waiting the tide may turn.
I think it’s wrong to fear Trump’s removal cuz ‘Vance is just as bad.’ JD is smarter, sure. But he’s hugely unpopular. It’d be gold for Dems to have enough Rs finally concede Trump is insane & unfit, then have to ride it out for years w/ a smarmy couchfucker Trump cuck few but Peter Theil support
I will continue to assert that the biggest danger of social media is to the over 60's (many of whom credulously believe it all) not the under 16's (who have grown up with it).
To be fair my 86 year old wife is often asking me if she is reading or watching AI generated stuff and is quite suspicious of it
Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.
Not the first time either.
Tariffs were simultaneously supposed to fully fund public spending and replace imports with domestic production.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.
I've always been annoyed that the genius of Orwell was misused by such low grade entertainment as Big Brother and Room 101.
Nor indeed by those who co-opt him as some kind of right of centre hero.
Some Europeans want to retaliate by raising tariffs - why penalise your own consumers with higher prices? It is they, not the American suppliers who would pay for them.
The key is to target products where there is an EU/UK manufactured alternative.
That way consumers don't pay, albeit European producers have a market where they can increase margins.
I don't think you need tariffs.
Some boycotting will happen whether mandated by the government or not.
Though getting everyone off Amazon, Microsoft and Google is not going to be easy.
From the source that had the Rosindell story first
EXCLUSIVE: Five Conservative MPs have formally opened discussions with Nigel Farage about defecting to Reform UK, including former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
As revealed tonight on Dan Wootton Outspoken, five Conservative MPs contacted Nigel Farage over the weekend to negotiate a potential defection to Reform UK. The most prominent figure among them is former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
While Zia Yusuf and Nigel Farage have publicly stated that the party will not accept any further Tory defections after 7 May, it can also be revealed that Reform UK remains willing to welcome as many Conservative defectors as possible — even if that means extending beyond the previously announced deadline.
Suella Braverman has been considering a move to Reform UK for several months. However, the recent defections of Andrew Rosindell and Robert Jenrick have significantly increased her inclination to make the switch.
I don't really understand this 'open discussion' business. What private conversations would tip the balance for someone teetering on the edge of defection, that is not known information already?
I think it’s wrong to fear Trump’s removal cuz ‘Vance is just as bad.’ JD is smarter, sure. But he’s hugely unpopular. It’d be gold for Dems to have enough Rs finally concede Trump is insane & unfit, then have to ride it out for years w/ a smarmy couchfucker Trump cuck few but Peter Theil support
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.
You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:
"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).
The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).
The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."
You still don't seem to realise that it must sum up to 100%.
So its possible for a country to spend more proportionally on both defence and welfare than the UK but less on other things.
Now if you want to increase the proportion of GDP which the UK spends on defence then some other sector will have to fall proportionally.
And if you want to significantly or quickly increase how much the UK spends on defence then the amount spent on other sectors will have to fall in absolute terms not just proportional terms.
Now some of us would suggest that reducing welfare to allow more funding for defence is justifiable.
While others might suggest lower funding for other sectors.
But something will have to lose out in order to increase funding in a different area.
Of course I do. I'm just pointing out that it's possible to have high proportions of GDP on both, as demonstrated by countries like the US, funnily enough.
He was key to Brexit, and so to the weakening of Europe.
Many of these underlying, geostrategic issues have been obvious for years.
Now here we are.
Drop your irrelevant dogma and hobbyhorse.
Brexit ≠ weakening of Europe.
Failure to invest in defence = weakening of Europe.
The UK has stood up for defence as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. We have worked with allies as much post-Brexit as pre-Brexit.
Europe chose welfare over national defence and strong borders. In a world of force doctrine and might is right it was a poor choice. Not only has it left us with a huge and unaffordable welfare bill and unbearably high taxes, it's also left us with no realistic way to tell Trump to get fucked.
You can do better than parrot Vance. From a previous thread when someone else tried this on:
"This is a weird meme because, as a percentage of GDP and including social security contributions, the United States is the biggest spender on welfare in the world - 7ppts higher than the UK. Even if you restrict it to pure, direct government expenditure (which isn't a fair comparison because of the complexities of public/private systems across countries), the US isn't far behind the UK (20% v 23%).
The Americans are welfare junkies like the rest of us - and they don't get anywhere near the value that the Nordics do (the happiest countries in the world).
The Poles spend a larger proportion on defence than we do - and are applauded for it - but their welfare spending is even higher. The same goes for Finland, the largest standing reserve and artillery in Europe. The Danes spend more than we do on defence as well. We shouldn't be bullied into copying an American system of governance which is demonstrably shite at all levels and in all aspects, particularly when these excellent alternatives exist."
You still don't seem to realise that it must sum up to 100%.
So its possible for a country to spend more proportionally on both defence and welfare than the UK but less on other things.
Now if you want to increase the proportion of GDP which the UK spends on defence then some other sector will have to fall proportionally.
And if you want to significantly or quickly increase how much the UK spends on defence then the amount spent on other sectors will have to fall in absolute terms not just proportional terms.
Now some of us would suggest that reducing welfare to allow more funding for defence is justifiable.
While others might suggest lower funding for other sectors.
But something will have to lose out in order to increase funding in a different area.
It's always complicated comparing the US with the UK (and other European countries), because so much of US spending is done at the State level. Total Federal spending on education is de minimis, while at the State level it's massive.
Certainly its complicated - although comparing the same country over time should be easier than comparing different countries.
But the general point remains that if you want to increase the proportion of GDP spent on one sector it will mean a reduction in the proportion of GDP spent in other sectors.
I think it’s wrong to fear Trump’s removal cuz ‘Vance is just as bad.’ JD is smarter, sure. But he’s hugely unpopular. It’d be gold for Dems to have enough Rs finally concede Trump is insane & unfit, then have to ride it out for years w/ a smarmy couchfucker Trump cuck few but Peter Theil support
From the source that had the Rosindell story first
EXCLUSIVE: Five Conservative MPs have formally opened discussions with Nigel Farage about defecting to Reform UK, including former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
As revealed tonight on Dan Wootton Outspoken, five Conservative MPs contacted Nigel Farage over the weekend to negotiate a potential defection to Reform UK. The most prominent figure among them is former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
While Zia Yusuf and Nigel Farage have publicly stated that the party will not accept any further Tory defections after 7 May, it can also be revealed that Reform UK remains willing to welcome as many Conservative defectors as possible — even if that means extending beyond the previously announced deadline.
Suella Braverman has been considering a move to Reform UK for several months. However, the recent defections of Andrew Rosindell and Robert Jenrick have significantly increased her inclination to make the switch.
I don't really understand this 'open discussion' business. What private conversations would tip the balance for someone teetering on the edge of defection, that is not known information already?
Braverman to reform would be the perfect loss for Kemi
Comments
I think the Tories would be doing well to be over 100 seats and being the third or fourth biggest party is very possible (as it is for any of Labour, Reform, Con, LD).
So maybe technically you're right, Brexit weakened Europe but you're complaining that the park bench is burning while the whole forest around it has already been burned down. It's not and will never be a game changer. Trump gave us 8 years of notice to saddle up and cut welfare to increase defence spending and we ignored his warnings and now we're paying the price.
They are screwed if we don't. And it doesn't hurt us, because the US is no longer the most stable money on the planet.
Add on the fact that a subsequent campaign would feature grabbing them again as a policy and you can see the problem.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
33m
Is there not one CEO—one!—who will publicly tell Trump to f___ off?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room!"
Blakes 7 is actually perfect for an experiment for exactly that reason, you can produce it fairly cheaply and name recognition will get enough people to watch the first episode that you can see if it works and whether word of mouth allows a bigger audience to be built.
Whether people watch it multiple times is unknown but I suspect Science Fiction is the sort of thing people may watch multiple times.
It really is not a rational assessment.
Unless American Caligula thinks Putin is his horse. Then it all makes sense.
Is it simply that they're able to borrow it?
But it's also possible that our continued involvement in the EU, and the unwasted half decade spent on the unproductive disentangling our cooperative arrangements would have made a bigger difference than you imagine.
I understand that you don't put any real positive value on our membership, but I disagree.
In any event can't know either way, as there's no running that experiment.
No matter how many times you say it!
Sorry. Don't know how that happened
https://x.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/2013336262908785149
It is a pretty depressing film, albeit some great acting. Like a Christmas Eastenders Special set in Tudor England.
Not the best choice for date night.
Where it differs with Trump is his personal character, and his stated opinions about democracy (particularly after Jan 6th). I cannot see how someone could vote for him and run the risk of losing the opportunity to vote at all, to vote for him after he mocked that disabled reporter, or sought to overturn an election. Voting for Trump doesn’t just say something about your politics; it says something more fundamental about who you are as a person.
The former Trump supporters I do respect are those who don't just repudiate him for stuff like Greenland, but those who recognise that he is, as an individual, entirely malign - and always has been.
A small but telling event…
Councillor Kathy Gibbon has joined the Conservatives from Reform handing the Tories control of Bucks County Council. Not earth-shattering but a reminder that political traffic can be two way!
Government to consult on under 16 social media ban
Plus
Crackdown on mobile phones in schools
It is they, not the American suppliers who would pay for them.
They've only previously said that they were thinking about it. Consulting on it is simply a formal way to widen the number of people involved in thinking about it.
The bible verse says "there's more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents...", not "a sinner who doesn't realise how badly the stuffed up".
Besides, there's some other bloke with a very similar name who made another optimistic prediction that utterly failed to come to pass. Dan something. There were going to be national celebratory fireworks and everything.
What is outrageous is damaging young lives by using and accessing inappropriate sites
That way consumers don't pay, albeit European producers have a market where they can increase margins.
49.5% of the time they are simply cover to be ignored because you have already decided your narrative/plan/actions and can cherry pick the consultation results to show whatever you want; 49.5% of the time they are simply cover to allow you to climb down and reverse course from what you had already "decided" your narrative/plan/actions were because it's too difficult so it's just easier to give up under the premise of reacting to the prevailing opinion; and 1% of the time they are actually used to gather ideas and views on a specific topic without any built-in preceding bias.
So it feels, anyway...
There was never any prospect of an additional 2% of GDP being spent on defense per year for more soldiers, marines, pilots, navigators, sailors and all the equipment, planes and boats to arm them properly. In or out of the EU there was never any prospect of doubling defence spending which is what we would have needed to do across the whole continent to be in a position to tell America, Russia, China and any other country to get fucked.
Even within the remit of defence, the EU has basically nothing to say. European defence has been done via NATO and a few bilateral treaties outside of EU oversight. Hardly any countries were (or are) meeting the minimum 2% spend as mandated by NATO. Are you suggesting that without Brexit the number of countries willing to spend at least 2% would have just magically gone up? It seems unlikely in the extreme.
I'm sure that when British conscripts were in the WWI trenches there were some right pillocks and arseholes in every unit. But needs must. And we're in a needs must situation.
The attitude of not wanting someone's support unless it's offered the right in the right way of a path to division and defeat.
And if we can agree with Dan Hannan on this now then perhaps we can bring him to see how this moment now follows from who Trump is, that it isn't an aberration, and he might agree with us more in the future.
Or we could call him a stupid prick, feel superior about ourselves, and drive him off.
I guess the thing I'm driving at is that - unlike Farage - and despite me quoting the Bible in the first place, we don't actually need people to fully repent or recant. We can welcome them taking one step at a time in the right direction.
The mayor of Gosport has announced she is leaving the Liberal Democrats and will continue in her role as first citizen as an independent councillor.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/gosport-mayor-ditches-liberal-democrats-and-becomes-an-independent-5480928
That means Gosport Lib Dems have gone from 15/28 to 14/28 + casting vote to 13/28 + no casting vote.
Hannan was still claiming on X today that he'd never supported Trump, which is, being extremely generous, not really true.
I agree that credit is due when someone changes their mind in the face of evidence. But equally, the evidence is also that Scott isn't entirely wrong.
Thanks for the correction!
I know it's fashionable to talk Europe down these days.
But Europe’s latent power *potential* and strategic options are arguably bigger today than they probably have been at any point since 1945.
Let me explain...
https://x.com/benbawan/status/2013036765813125490
Put it this way the implementation will be fun and free VPNs are going to have a field day.
So its possible for a country to spend more proportionally on both defence and welfare than the UK but less on other things.
Now if you want to increase the proportion of GDP which the UK spends on defence then some other sector will have to fall proportionally.
And if you want to significantly or quickly increase how much the UK spends on defence then the amount spent on other sectors will have to fall in absolute terms not just proportional terms.
Now some of us would suggest that reducing welfare to allow more funding for defence is justifiable.
While others might suggest lower funding for other sectors.
But something will have to lose out in order to increase funding in a different area.
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
1h
We must take over Greenland because of the Russian threat.
Putin is also invited to the “Board of Peace.”
Totally makes sense.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump
Not the first time either.
Tariffs were simultaneously supposed to fully fund public spending and replace imports with domestic production.
If they hadn't I suspect Dr Who wouldn't have had a second series let alone be talked about 60 years later after 2 regenerations.
I've always been annoyed that the genius of Orwell was misused by such low grade entertainment as Big Brother and Room 101.
But much of that remains, for now, potential.
I think it’s wrong to fear Trump’s removal cuz ‘Vance is just as bad.’ JD is smarter, sure. But he’s hugely unpopular. It’d be gold for Dems to have enough Rs finally concede Trump is insane & unfit, then have to ride it out for years w/ a smarmy couchfucker Trump cuck few but Peter Theil support
https://bsky.app/profile/chatham58.bsky.social/post/3mcsqi64nvs2n
Grok still produces those images, just doesn't show them in the UK.
It is hard to ban Social Media, or to draw the boundaries. The need is to make the publisher liable for comments made on their systems.
They really do hate someone who has risen from deprivation.
In Kamchatka, Russia, it snowed so much that dudes are jumping out of buildings without injuring themselves
https://x.com/DudespostingWs/status/2013236605000044700
Some boycotting will happen whether mandated by the government or not.
Though getting everyone off Amazon, Microsoft and Google is not going to be easy.
Grok isn't, and has never claimed to be, social media.
But the general point remains that if you want to increase the proportion of GDP spent on one sector it will mean a reduction in the proportion of GDP spent in other sectors.