18% of Reform voters say accept it as do 8% of Tories and 38% of Reform voters say respond diplomatically only as do 46% of Tories.
44% of LDs and 40% of Labour voters and 28% of Greens back economic retaliation against the US, 26% of Green voters and 17% of Labour and 16% of LD voters back military retaliation against the US
Almost as if he can’t be right on one thing and wrong on another thing at the same time.
Can Mr Schofield walk and chew gum?
Another case : Trump demanded that Europe increase defence spending.
Should we increase, decrease or leave defence spending the same?
Simply opposing “for the sake of” is as stupid as Trump.
Trump’s been singing that tune since 2017, and he really isn’t wrong. The US has very much been propping up European defence spending since the ‘60s.
The trick now, is to persuade him that the US component of the next generation of defence spending is very much proportional to the willingness of the US to play along with everyone else, rather than the needless antagonism of the past 48 hours which will need publically walking back. Also an understanding that most European counties don’t have executive orders, so stuff can’t just be willed into happening almost overnight.
It is true that the Europeans haven't spent enough on defence, but I think you can go too far with that sort of criticism. When push came to shove and the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11, European countries in NATO responded and fought alongside the US in Afghanistan.
There were 457 UK deaths in Afghanistan, 43 Danes.
Europe paid in blood for America in Afghanistan and it's insulting in the extreme for Trump to bang on about Europe freeloading off US defence spending in that context, and I'd like to see a bit more gratitude from the Americans for the Europeans who fought and died alongside them in Afghanistan.
Almost as if he can’t be right on one thing and wrong on another thing at the same time.
Can Mr Schofield walk and chew gum?
Another case : Trump demanded that Europe increase defence spending.
Should we increase, decrease or leave defence spending the same?
Simply opposing “for the sake of” is as stupid as Trump.
Trump’s been singing that tune since 2017, and he really isn’t wrong. The US has very much been propping up European defence spending since the ‘60s.
The trick now, is to persuade him that the US component of the next generation of defence spending is very much proportional to the willingness of the US to play along with everyone else, rather than the needless antagonism of the past 48 hours which will need publically walking back. Also an understanding that most European counties don’t have executive orders, so stuff can’t just be willed into happening almost overnight.
It is true that the Europeans haven't spent enough on defence, but I think you can go too far with that sort of criticism. When push came to shove and the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11, European countries in NATO responded and fought alongside the US in Afghanistan.
There were 457 UK deaths in Afghanistan, 43 Danes.
Europe paid in blood for America in Afghanistan and it's insulting in the extreme for Trump to bang on about Europe freeloading off US defence spending in that context, and I'd like to see a bit more gratitude from the Americans for the Europeans who fought and died alongside them in Afghanistan.
Okay, but who’s about to say that today?
Oh, and the more you look into defence spending since 2001, the worse it looks for Europe.
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
Military defence is of course only one side of the coin. We are so reliant on foreign, especially US, tech that our economy could be laid low without the need to deploy a single soldier. We desperately need to get on with disengaging our vital infrastructure from foreign dependency.
But here's one you wouldn't expect. It's the Greens who have the greatest number by far (26%) who favour military action against the USA to retake Greenland.
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
I dismiss it because the EU fund is being bogged down in the same petty arguments as any pan European defence project. Where do the jobs go, why should Germany bankroll the French defence industry. Why isn't Thales included in this part. Why is the UK getting any part of this fund. Why don't we just build the tanks in Germany instead.
Unless that stops no one will take the EU seriously on defence matters.
Who’s the European Musk or Luckey, who just comes in and says we do this sh!t, would you like to buy it?
But here's one you wouldn't expect. It's the Greens who have the greatest number by far (26%) who favour military action against the USA to retake Greenland.
This is an example of why I’d love there to be a mechanism to do anonymised polling of PB contributors on the issues of the day.
The results would be fascinating, and we could also settle once and for all those questions of whether this place is a roiling mass of MAGA apologists or a woke centrist dad village.
As the world is batshit crazy I was tempted not to bother. But lets do an outlier:
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? -80 (elections suspended in zones under Martial Law) Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? -6 (elections suspended in states where seditious traitors were in charge of trying to rig the election) Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 60 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 31 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). 14% Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 17% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 17 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Wes Streeting Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? Yes UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £145bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025). 0.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. - no winner. Tournament collapses into chaos when ICE arrests players from Senegal and shoots the manager on live TV
Interesting but of course Trump cannot suspend elections without state governor and legislature consent and nor can he send in the National Guard without Congressional approval on the grounds of war or emergency
Trump can do anything he wants. State governors will be getting arrested as well. Traitors!
State governors can also call out the State National Guards, as I said Trump cannot call out the Federal National Guard without Congressional approval. State governors also control the state police, so they certainly won't be telling them to arrest themselves, it would need the FBI
At times you do seem to be naive
The evidence is that Trump will do whatever Trump wants
Well he can't, most US police are controlled by state governors, mayors and local sheriffs in the US NOT the President. States also have their own National Guards controlled by state governors and Congress has to approve the President deploying the Federal National Guard.
The FBI is also run by its own director accountable to Congress not just POTUS
Well he can't
Well, yes he can until such time he ceases to be POTUS
Go away and read some facts about the US law enforcement system before posting again please BigG.
The President does NOT control the US police, state governors and mayors and sheriffs do. The President does not even have full control of the FBI and Federal National Guard, Congress also has oversight as does the FBI Director.
The President does control the army but by that point if he sent in the army against half his nation the US would be headed for a second civil war anyway if Congress had not impeached and convicted him and removed him from office first (and Congress could cut off funds for the army too)
Read up on what he is doing in Minnesota. The reality is that unless Congress exercises its oversight powers, which it is not now doing, then there isn't all that much that any but the biggest states can do to prevent, or even control the paramilitary organisation that is ICE.
You talk about the FBI not being under his control - and yet that organisation actively took control of the investigation of a homicide by an ICE agent, prevented state law enforcement from investigating (or even having access to evidence), and has now declared the investigation closed.
And there appears to be no way in federal law to bring a civil action against either the FBI or ICE o compel investigation.
What they have done is a clear civil rights breach (and therefore criminal under existing federal legislation), but there appears to be no avenue by which a case can be brought, without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice.
There is a slight difference between ICE actions taken against a woman they say was trying to run over one of their officials and Trump cancelling midterm elections without the say so of state governors who control their State national guards and state police.
Management of elections is also not an FBI issue
There is no difference. SA squads are marauding not only at will, they have been granted absolute immunity.
The states no longer have control of what goes on inside their borders. Trump is using Minnesota as the testbed, but the principle is very simple - the government has absolute control.
The government has declared various Dem officials to be seditious traitors and maintains that elections are fraudulent. It is perfectly rational to extend this reality to a place where the state officials are arrested and / or prevented by force from holding elections.
I don't predict these elections will be cancelled. They will say "suspended". Hold them in GOP areas, suspend them in areas full of traitors and insurrectionists. You then get a fully pliant congress where all of the dem seats have expired without an election to replace them. Congress then votes Trump to have extraordinary powers in this time of national emergency (the insurgency) and that is that.
What stops this? Trump is ill. But I doubt the regime would be willing to pack up and go to jail if he dies...
I don't think it's anywhere near as clearcut as that. Note that Minneapolis is a pretty small city by US standards (which is probably why they're targeting it), so ICE has a disproportionate effect for the numbers deployed.
I've little doubt that you're right about the administration trying stuff on ahead the midterms, but it's far from a done deal, and there is significant pushback.
Any outcome between your nightmare scenario and a Democratic landslide is possible.
In this maelstrom nothing is settled, so I am happy to agree that nothing is clearcut. I am presenting my hypothesis for what is happening and what will continue to happen.
Trump built the electoral coalition which the Democrats have been trying to rebuild for years and he's thrown it all away. Yes he has the Karen vote and the bigot vote, but that's all. Latino and Black voters came out heavily for him and that is over.
So any electoral cycle run openly and fairly would indeed give the democrats a landslide, with every consequence you can think of following it. Which is why I discount that as a likely scenario. Never before even a question, but now the most unlikely option.
CNBC: McConnell has said that if the president moves on Greenland, this would something that Republican senators would impeach him on. Are you in that camp?
TILLIS: I'm not going to go to impeachment. Let's say it was a kinetic action -- I'd immediately go for a War Powers resolution.
The YouGov poll means that the last four reported polls (on Wiki's list) have Reform below 30. This is the first four in a row since July. Interesting times; I tentatively predict this trend down to continue for a bit.
But here's one you wouldn't expect. It's the Greens who have the greatest number by far (26%) who favour military action against the USA to retake Greenland.
This is an example of why I’d love there to be a mechanism to do anonymised polling of PB contributors on the issues of the day.
The results would be fascinating, and we could also settle once and for all those questions of whether this place is a roiling mass of MAGA apologists or a woke centrist dad village.
You'd have the same problem as with all polling - non-response bias.
18% of Reform voters say accept it as do 8% of Tories and 38% of Reform voters say respond diplomatically only as do 46% of Tories.
44% of LDs and 40% of Labour voters and 28% of Greens back economic retaliation against the US, 26% of Green voters and 17% of Labour and 16% of LD voters back military retaliation against the US
Retaliate militarily is bonkers. The key is to rapidly build up rest of Nato independent military capability which isn't listed as an option. Some form of economic retaliation is secondary.
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
It isn't just how much are we spending on defence, it is who are we spending it with. Contracts with the US and with US contractors should be the first thing to be binned. Trump imposes his tariffs - which he pays for. Instead of reciprocal tariffs we would pay for, void all the defence contracts...
As the world is batshit crazy I was tempted not to bother. But lets do an outlier:
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? -80 (elections suspended in zones under Martial Law) Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? -6 (elections suspended in states where seditious traitors were in charge of trying to rig the election) Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 60 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 31 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). 14% Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 17% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 17 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Wes Streeting Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? Yes UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £145bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025). 0.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. - no winner. Tournament collapses into chaos when ICE arrests players from Senegal and shoots the manager on live TV
Interesting but of course Trump cannot suspend elections without state governor and legislature consent and nor can he send in the National Guard without Congressional approval on the grounds of war or emergency
Trump can do anything he wants. State governors will be getting arrested as well. Traitors!
State governors can also call out the State National Guards, as I said Trump cannot call out the Federal National Guard without Congressional approval. State governors also control the state police, so they certainly won't be telling them to arrest themselves, it would need the FBI
At times you do seem to be naive
The evidence is that Trump will do whatever Trump wants
Well he can't, most US police are controlled by state governors, mayors and local sheriffs in the US NOT the President. States also have their own National Guards controlled by state governors and Congress has to approve the President deploying the Federal National Guard.
The FBI is also run by its own director accountable to Congress not just POTUS
Well he can't
Well, yes he can until such time he ceases to be POTUS
Go away and read some facts about the US law enforcement system before posting again please BigG.
The President does NOT control the US police, state governors and mayors and sheriffs do. The President does not even have full control of the FBI and Federal National Guard, Congress also has oversight as does the FBI Director.
The President does control the army but by that point if he sent in the army against half his nation the US would be headed for a second civil war anyway if Congress had not impeached and convicted him and removed him from office first (and Congress could cut off funds for the army too)
Read up on what he is doing in Minnesota. The reality is that unless Congress exercises its oversight powers, which it is not now doing, then there isn't all that much that any but the biggest states can do to prevent, or even control the paramilitary organisation that is ICE.
You talk about the FBI not being under his control - and yet that organisation actively took control of the investigation of a homicide by an ICE agent, prevented state law enforcement from investigating (or even having access to evidence), and has now declared the investigation closed.
And there appears to be no way in federal law to bring a civil action against either the FBI or ICE o compel investigation.
What they have done is a clear civil rights breach (and therefore criminal under existing federal legislation), but there appears to be no avenue by which a case can be brought, without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice.
There is a slight difference between ICE actions taken against a woman they say was trying to run over one of their officials and Trump cancelling midterm elections without the say so of state governors who control their State national guards and state police.
Management of elections is also not an FBI issue
There is no difference. SA squads are marauding not only at will, they have been granted absolute immunity.
The states no longer have control of what goes on inside their borders. Trump is using Minnesota as the testbed, but the principle is very simple - the government has absolute control.
The government has declared various Dem officials to be seditious traitors and maintains that elections are fraudulent. It is perfectly rational to extend this reality to a place where the state officials are arrested and / or prevented by force from holding elections.
I don't predict these elections will be cancelled. They will say "suspended". Hold them in GOP areas, suspend them in areas full of traitors and insurrectionists. You then get a fully pliant congress where all of the dem seats have expired without an election to replace them. Congress then votes Trump to have extraordinary powers in this time of national emergency (the insurgency) and that is that.
What stops this? Trump is ill. But I doubt the regime would be willing to pack up and go to jail if he dies...
Which is rubbish, state governors can still deploy state guards and state police.
Those Democratic governors and state officials of blue states and purple states will certainly go ahead with elections in November, the President has no power to stop them.
It only needs a handful of GOP representatives to also vote with the Democrats to impeach Trump again.
If not then of course Democratic states would start seceding from the Union and you end up with US civil war 2
But here's one you wouldn't expect. It's the Greens who have the greatest number by far (26%) who favour military action against the USA to retake Greenland.
This is an example of why I’d love there to be a mechanism to do anonymised polling of PB contributors on the issues of the day.
The results would be fascinating, and we could also settle once and for all those questions of whether this place is a roiling mass of MAGA apologists or a woke centrist dad village.
Is it one vote per person or one vote per pb identity? Makes a big difference.....
CNBC: McConnell has said that if the president moves on Greenland, this would something that Republican senators would impeach him on. Are you in that camp?
TILLIS: I'm not going to go to impeachment. Let's say it was a kinetic action -- I'd immediately go for a War Powers resolution.
It is the HOUSE that impeaches not the Senate and the GOP only have a majority of 5 there. The Senate can only vote to convict
Netflix announced on Tuesday that it had modified its December offer to acquire major parts of Warner Bros. Discovery, a rejoinder to Paramount and its chief executive, David Ellison, who is also in hot pursuit of Warner Bros.
But here's one you wouldn't expect. It's the Greens who have the greatest number by far (26%) who favour military action against the USA to retake Greenland.
As someone who believes strongly in our common duty to take care of the world for future generations, I quite understand the motivation to take military action against those who clearly don't give a fuck about anyone or anything other than themselves. That goes for both Trump and Putin (support for military action against Russia has also remained high among Greens).
There’s zero chance that the UK and EU would take military action against the USA if it takes over Greenland.
If Trump decides on that course of action I expect there would be turmoil in the USA . The markets would crash globally and economic sanctions would need to placed against the USA .
We of course would suffer economically in the UK but you simply can’t allow Trump a free pass . The hope would be the economic pain would hurt the GOP and if the mid-terms actually go ahead voters can deliver their verdict .
18% of Reform voters say accept it as do 8% of Tories and 38% of Reform voters say respond diplomatically only as do 46% of Tories.
44% of LDs and 40% of Labour voters and 28% of Greens back economic retaliation against the US, 26% of Green voters and 17% of Labour and 16% of LD voters back military retaliation against the US
Retaliate militarily is bonkers. The key is to rapidly build up rest of Nato independent military capability which isn't listed as an option. Some form of economic retaliation is secondary.
Direct military retaliation bonkers, probably, but perhaps the Greenlanders could set up a fundraising organisation to help them to resist the new colonial occupier. They could call it, say, Nordaid, and go round the pubs of Britain collecting donations.
But here's one you wouldn't expect. It's the Greens who have the greatest number by far (26%) who favour military action against the USA to retake Greenland.
This is an example of why I’d love there to be a mechanism to do anonymised polling of PB contributors on the issues of the day.
The results would be fascinating, and we could also settle once and for all those questions of whether this place is a roiling mass of MAGA apologists or a woke centrist dad village.
Is it one vote per person or one vote per pb identity? Makes a big difference.....
You mean the difference between evenly split and MAGA landslide?
But here's one you wouldn't expect. It's the Greens who have the greatest number by far (26%) who favour military action against the USA to retake Greenland.
Well that at least fits with the rest of their fantasy politics.
There’s zero chance that the UK and EU would take military action against the USA if it takes over Greenland.
If Trump decides on that course of action I expect there would be turmoil in the USA . The markets would crash globally and economic sanctions would need to placed against the USA .
We of course would suffer economically in the UK but you simply can’t allow Trump a free pass . The hope would be the economic pain would hurt the GOP and if the mid-terms actually go ahead voters can deliver their verdict .
We should strike at the centre of Trump's power.... nuke the Kremlin
Looking forward to Musk tweeting that stat out next time there is a shooting in the US and he sees lots of comments about the lack of shootings here.
The equivalent figure for the US is 4,500,000 dog attacks (people bitten by dogs) annually, with about 20% requiring medical treatment. Scaling for human population, that’s about 18,000 for South Yorkshire - eighteen times higher.
Historical sensibility tells us it is the barbarians who storm the gates. In today’s America, it is the other way round. Inside the citadel, the hordes are incinerating America’s traditions of law, civility and restraint. The civic-minded cry in the wilderness. Measured by the old era’s conventions, US President Donald Trump’s bonfire is only a quarter of the way through. Like so much else — the US Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center, the Versailles-style White House ballroom, other people’s Nobel Prizes — Trump is rebranding the US as his own. As America prepares to commemorate its 250th anniversary, the republic is flirting with its own funeral.
Looking forward to Musk tweeting that stat out next time there is a shooting in the US and he sees lots of comments about the lack of shootings here.
The equivalent figure for the US is 4,500,000 dog attacks (people bitten by dogs) annually, with about 20% requiring medical treatment. Scaling for human population, that’s about 18,000 for South Yorkshire - eighteen times higher.
Sorry but that’s f***ing stupid. Kemi and Nigel need to be all over this, including the judicial review.
China can have an embassy in the middle of Mayfair or Knightsbridge like the rest of them, not in a very specific location right in the middle of the City.
We all know they’re spending billions on the spy kit for this specific location.
Sorry but that’s f***ing stupid. Kemi and Nigel need to be all over this, including the judicial review.
China can have an embassy in the middle of Mayfair or Knightsbridge like the rest of them, not in a very specific location right in the middle of the City.
We all know they’re spending billions on the spy kit for this specific location.
Didn’t realise you knew better than MI5 and MI6
Welcome to political betting, assume you must be new?
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
Military defence is of course only one side of the coin. We are so reliant on foreign, especially US, tech that our economy could be laid low without the need to deploy a single soldier. We desperately need to get on with disengaging our vital infrastructure from foreign dependency.
The MoD have recently caved on the Combat Control System for the AUKUS boats. They've ditched the British/European system and gone for AN/BYG-1 in the British boats thus rewarding General Dynamics for their performance on Ajax. We've had some pretty strong in assurances written on a napkin from Hooters that British weapons and sensors will be integrated into the system.
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
I dismiss it because the EU fund is being bogged down in the same petty arguments as any pan European defence project. Where do the jobs go, why should Germany bankroll the French defence industry. Why isn't Thales included in this part. Why is the UK getting any part of this fund. Why don't we just build the tanks in Germany instead.
Unless that stops no one will take the EU seriously on defence matters.
On a side note on that, the UK-Italy-Japan 6th Gen Aircraft programme is potentially quite well positioned for the future, as it is the only non-USA-non-China one which is proceeding somewhat effectively.
Potentially a very good thing if this or a future UK Govt do not salami slice it.
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
Military defence is of course only one side of the coin. We are so reliant on foreign, especially US, tech that our economy could be laid low without the need to deploy a single soldier. We desperately need to get on with disengaging our vital infrastructure from foreign dependency.
High time our politicians admitted that De Gaulle was right all along…
Looking forward to Musk tweeting that stat out next time there is a shooting in the US and he sees lots of comments about the lack of shootings here.
The equivalent figure for the US is 4,500,000 dog attacks (people bitten by dogs) annually, with about 20% requiring medical treatment. Scaling for human population, that’s about 18,000 for South Yorkshire - eighteen times higher.
That's why we shouldn't import US dog breeds, though it could explain their obsession with owning guns, they need to be ready to shoot their dog in case it turns on them.
As the world is batshit crazy I was tempted not to bother. But lets do an outlier:
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? -80 (elections suspended in zones under Martial Law) Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? -6 (elections suspended in states where seditious traitors were in charge of trying to rig the election) Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 60 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 31 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). 14% Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 17% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 17 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Wes Streeting Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? Yes UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £145bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025). 0.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. - no winner. Tournament collapses into chaos when ICE arrests players from Senegal and shoots the manager on live TV
Interesting but of course Trump cannot suspend elections without state governor and legislature consent and nor can he send in the National Guard without Congressional approval on the grounds of war or emergency
Trump can do anything he wants. State governors will be getting arrested as well. Traitors!
State governors can also call out the State National Guards, as I said Trump cannot call out the Federal National Guard without Congressional approval. State governors also control the state police, so they certainly won't be telling them to arrest themselves, it would need the FBI
At times you do seem to be naive
The evidence is that Trump will do whatever Trump wants
Well he can't, most US police are controlled by state governors, mayors and local sheriffs in the US NOT the President. States also have their own National Guards controlled by state governors and Congress has to approve the President deploying the Federal National Guard.
The FBI is also run by its own director accountable to Congress not just POTUS
Well he can't
Well, yes he can until such time he ceases to be POTUS
Go away and read some facts about the US law enforcement system before posting again please BigG.
The President does NOT control the US police, state governors and mayors and sheriffs do. The President does not even have full control of the FBI and Federal National Guard, Congress also has oversight as does the FBI Director.
The President does control the army but by that point if he sent in the army against half his nation the US would be headed for a second civil war anyway if Congress had not impeached and convicted him and removed him from office first (and Congress could cut off funds for the army too)
Read up on what he is doing in Minnesota. The reality is that unless Congress exercises its oversight powers, which it is not now doing, then there isn't all that much that any but the biggest states can do to prevent, or even control the paramilitary organisation that is ICE.
You talk about the FBI not being under his control - and yet that organisation actively took control of the investigation of a homicide by an ICE agent, prevented state law enforcement from investigating (or even having access to evidence), and has now declared the investigation closed.
And there appears to be no way in federal law to bring a civil action against either the FBI or ICE o compel investigation.
What they have done is a clear civil rights breach (and therefore criminal under existing federal legislation), but there appears to be no avenue by which a case can be brought, without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice.
There is a slight difference between ICE actions taken against a woman they say was trying to run over one of their officials and Trump cancelling midterm elections without the say so of state governors who control their State national guards and state police.
Management of elections is also not an FBI issue
There is no difference. SA squads are marauding not only at will, they have been granted absolute immunity.
The states no longer have control of what goes on inside their borders. Trump is using Minnesota as the testbed, but the principle is very simple - the government has absolute control.
The government has declared various Dem officials to be seditious traitors and maintains that elections are fraudulent. It is perfectly rational to extend this reality to a place where the state officials are arrested and / or prevented by force from holding elections.
I don't predict these elections will be cancelled. They will say "suspended". Hold them in GOP areas, suspend them in areas full of traitors and insurrectionists. You then get a fully pliant congress where all of the dem seats have expired without an election to replace them. Congress then votes Trump to have extraordinary powers in this time of national emergency (the insurgency) and that is that.
What stops this? Trump is ill. But I doubt the regime would be willing to pack up and go to jail if he dies...
Which is rubbish, state governors can still deploy state guards and state police.
Those Democratic governors and state officials of blue states and purple states will certainly go ahead with elections in November, the President has no power to stop them.
It only needs a handful of GOP representatives to also vote with the Democrats to impeach Trump again.
If not then of course Democratic states would start seceding from the Union and you end up with US civil war 2
You're in a desperate state of denial.
Deploy state guards and police. Against the SA. Who have blanket immunity to shoot people dead. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. Which federalises the MN national guard and removes them from state control.
You can't hold elections in states where federal troops have taken control and arrested the officials who organise elections as terrorists. As he has already declared many of them terrorists why would he allow them to rig the elections against him?
GOP are not going to vote to impeach Trump out of fear as to what will happen to their career and in some cases in fear of what would happen to them and their families. Last time they impeached him nothing happened. We won't even get that far this time.
Hard for states to secede when they are under Martial law.
I know you don't want to accept the evidence of your eyes and ears but it is there.
As the world is batshit crazy I was tempted not to bother. But lets do an outlier:
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? -80 (elections suspended in zones under Martial Law) Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? -6 (elections suspended in states where seditious traitors were in charge of trying to rig the election) Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 60 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 31 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). 14% Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 17% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 17 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Wes Streeting Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? Yes UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £145bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025). 0.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. - no winner. Tournament collapses into chaos when ICE arrests players from Senegal and shoots the manager on live TV
Interesting but of course Trump cannot suspend elections without state governor and legislature consent and nor can he send in the National Guard without Congressional approval on the grounds of war or emergency
Trump can do anything he wants. State governors will be getting arrested as well. Traitors!
State governors can also call out the State National Guards, as I said Trump cannot call out the Federal National Guard without Congressional approval. State governors also control the state police, so they certainly won't be telling them to arrest themselves, it would need the FBI
At times you do seem to be naive
The evidence is that Trump will do whatever Trump wants
Well he can't, most US police are controlled by state governors, mayors and local sheriffs in the US NOT the President. States also have their own National Guards controlled by state governors and Congress has to approve the President deploying the Federal National Guard.
The FBI is also run by its own director accountable to Congress not just POTUS
Well he can't
Well, yes he can until such time he ceases to be POTUS
Go away and read some facts about the US law enforcement system before posting again please BigG.
The President does NOT control the US police, state governors and mayors and sheriffs do. The President does not even have full control of the FBI and Federal National Guard, Congress also has oversight as does the FBI Director.
The President does control the army but by that point if he sent in the army against half his nation the US would be headed for a second civil war anyway if Congress had not impeached and convicted him and removed him from office first (and Congress could cut off funds for the army too)
Read up on what he is doing in Minnesota. The reality is that unless Congress exercises its oversight powers, which it is not now doing, then there isn't all that much that any but the biggest states can do to prevent, or even control the paramilitary organisation that is ICE.
You talk about the FBI not being under his control - and yet that organisation actively took control of the investigation of a homicide by an ICE agent, prevented state law enforcement from investigating (or even having access to evidence), and has now declared the investigation closed.
And there appears to be no way in federal law to bring a civil action against either the FBI or ICE o compel investigation.
What they have done is a clear civil rights breach (and therefore criminal under existing federal legislation), but there appears to be no avenue by which a case can be brought, without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice.
There is a slight difference between ICE actions taken against a woman they say was trying to run over one of their officials and Trump cancelling midterm elections without the say so of state governors who control their State national guards and state police.
Management of elections is also not an FBI issue
There is no difference. SA squads are marauding not only at will, they have been granted absolute immunity.
The states no longer have control of what goes on inside their borders. Trump is using Minnesota as the testbed, but the principle is very simple - the government has absolute control.
The government has declared various Dem officials to be seditious traitors and maintains that elections are fraudulent. It is perfectly rational to extend this reality to a place where the state officials are arrested and / or prevented by force from holding elections.
I don't predict these elections will be cancelled. They will say "suspended". Hold them in GOP areas, suspend them in areas full of traitors and insurrectionists. You then get a fully pliant congress where all of the dem seats have expired without an election to replace them. Congress then votes Trump to have extraordinary powers in this time of national emergency (the insurgency) and that is that.
What stops this? Trump is ill. But I doubt the regime would be willing to pack up and go to jail if he dies...
Which is rubbish, state governors can still deploy state guards and state police.
Those Democratic governors and state officials of blue states and purple states will certainly go ahead with elections in November, the President has no power to stop them.
It only needs a handful of GOP representatives to also vote with the Democrats to impeach Trump again.
If not then of course Democratic states would start seceding from the Union and you end up with US civil war 2
Get your nose out of those US constitutional law books, and go read this:
No direct parallels, but an illustration of how the entire fabric of a democratic state can be captured or cast aside in less than a year, starting from a position without actual majority power. People like you who tried to say “you can’t do that” either got beaten up in their own home, or found themselves in Dachau.
Unusually we have 2 local by-elections today, There is a Ref defence in Derbyshire and a Lab defence in Amber Valley (which is in Derbyshire).
The Lab will go Reform. The Ref defence is interesting. Green came second last year with the Cons a close third. Will be telling contest which any of those three could take. Particularly as Ref are now the Establishment not the insurgents in Derbyshire with a huge majority on the Council.
The Ref UK defence of Denby, Horsley etc could be tricky on local factors because the Councillor elected last May only attended one meeting between then and his resignation in November. The resignation is claimed to be due to ill health *.
It's sort of semi-rural, but also with industrial history.
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
I dismiss it because the EU fund is being bogged down in the same petty arguments as any pan European defence project. Where do the jobs go, why should Germany bankroll the French defence industry. Why isn't Thales included in this part. Why is the UK getting any part of this fund. Why don't we just build the tanks in Germany instead.
Unless that stops no one will take the EU seriously on defence matters.
On a side note on that, the UK-Italy-Japan 6th Gen Aircraft programme is potentially quite well positioned for the future, as it is the only non-USA-non-China one which is proceeding somewhat effectively.
Potentially a very good thing if this or a future UK Govt do not salami slice it.
On a side note on that, the UK-Italy-Japan 6th Gen Aircraft programme is potentially quite well positioned for the future, as it is the only non-USA-non-China one which is proceeding somewhat effectively.
Potentially a very good thing if this or a future UK Govt do not salami slice it.
It'll be like Typhoon - an unkillable vampire that drains vast amounts out of the defence budget for about a decade. The only question is which decade? They've missed the 2020s and this thing was supposed to be flying in 2025.
FCAS is looking dead unless it becomes the anointed EUfighter which could happen.
I have one thing to say to the right wing politicians now pearl clutching over the new Chinese embassy.
You pushed Brexit and fellated Trump . The UK now has few options , out of the EU and with US UK relations in the toilet the government has no choice but to beg for scraps from the buffet table .
That just isn't true.
For one thing, we can have a rational relationship with the EU from the outside. We can argue about whether it would be better to be in the club, etc, but we are not cast into the outer darkness by being outside. The EU is pretty keen on working with countries that keep to agreements that they make.
Secondly, although the US has gone off the rails, there are still a whole bunch of countries that are not in the EU, but are democratic and respect the rule of law and the international agreements that they make: Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and others of various sizes and shades of grey. We can do a lot with the EU + Japan + South Korea + Canada + Australia
For another example, although Modi is running India in a way that does not completely align with our interests, and is not as democratic as one would wish, India is not yet a threat to Britain in the way that China is, and so we would be better building our relationship with India than with China.
It's really weird to say that Brexit and Trump means we have to prostrate ourselves to China. It doesn't, and doing so would damage us.
You're usually very balanced on many issues, Password, but I can't see any argument that we are not now significantly more vulnerable in this new era of imperial powerplay outside the E.U.
Putin's GRU handbook advocated for Brexit for just this reason, to weaken both the U.K., and Europe.
If you can't see it, that's because of your own lack of imagination, not anything else.
Defence is not an EU-issue, it is a national expenditure issue. Either we invest in Defence, or we do not.
The EU is frankly moot to the discussion.
The EU isn't moot. They are a large collection of countries that are mostly good allies for the UK on defence issues, which means that UK is not so alone that we have to beg China for protection from the Yanks.
They are a large collection of countries, yes, not a single country.
The countries are relevant, the EU is not. Maybe one day it will be, but for today, it is moot.
And those collection of countries aren't investing as much as they should on Defence.
And no we do not need to beg China for anything and anyone who says we should, or that we could take Chinese promises seriously, is not remotely sane or serious themselves.
The EU is borrowing €150bn for member states to spend on rearmament. You could argue that the EU is doing more to invest in defence than the UK is.
A one off €150bn is about 1% of EU GDP. It's basically nothing in the grander scheme. Defence spending in the EU should be around €500bn per year and in the UK it should be about £120bn per year. That gives us real hard power to tell the Chinese, Americans, Russians and anyone else who wants to have a go to get fucked. Do you think that Trump would be trying it on with Greenland if collective European defence spending was $700bn per year? Would China be able to dictate terms to the UK on having a literal spying outpost in London if we had 4% of GDP spent on defence per year? Absolutely fucking not.
Europe is weak globally because we have underinvested in hard power for decades and tried to fool ourselves into thinking that soft/cultural (in our case) or regulatory (for the EU) power can make up for it. It can't. In a world where might is right, we find ourselves completely lacking in any hard currency to get our way. For that we have to live with Trump attempting to annex part of a European country.
I completely agree that the UK and Europe should both be spending more on defence, and that both still don't get that the world has changed and requires a big change in response.
I only raised the €150bn as an example that the EU is not moot when it comes to defence. If Europe does get its act together on defence then the role of the EU as part of that is likely to be larger than it is now.
People who dismiss the EU on defence, as Barty does, are living in the past and not paying attention to how the EU is changing (albeit too slowly and not enough).
It isn't just how much are we spending on defence, it is who are we spending it with. Contracts with the US and with US contractors should be the first thing to be binned. Trump imposes his tariffs - which he pays for. Instead of reciprocal tariffs we would pay for, void all the defence contracts...
Which ones ?
European airforces, including our own, are heavily committed to the F35, which it's not realistic to replace for decades.
We couldn't afford to cancel the Chinook (£1.8bn) order and replace it with something else. Not can we easily decouple from our deep ties with US defence manufacturing in general.
The only realistic way to do that, without doing ourselves more damage than anything we might do to the US, is for future orders.
Europe is better positioned than we are in that respect, but much the same applies.
The saving grace from our POV is that we've barely started to ramp up defence spending. Any increases should be spent on this side of the Atlantic (which is pretty well what Europe is trying to do too).
As the world is batshit crazy I was tempted not to bother. But lets do an outlier:
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? -80 (elections suspended in zones under Martial Law) Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? -6 (elections suspended in states where seditious traitors were in charge of trying to rig the election) Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 60 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 31 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). 14% Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 17% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 17 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Wes Streeting Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? Yes UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £145bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025). 0.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. - no winner. Tournament collapses into chaos when ICE arrests players from Senegal and shoots the manager on live TV
Interesting but of course Trump cannot suspend elections without state governor and legislature consent and nor can he send in the National Guard without Congressional approval on the grounds of war or emergency
Trump can do anything he wants. State governors will be getting arrested as well. Traitors!
State governors can also call out the State National Guards, as I said Trump cannot call out the Federal National Guard without Congressional approval. State governors also control the state police, so they certainly won't be telling them to arrest themselves, it would need the FBI
At times you do seem to be naive
The evidence is that Trump will do whatever Trump wants
Well he can't, most US police are controlled by state governors, mayors and local sheriffs in the US NOT the President. States also have their own National Guards controlled by state governors and Congress has to approve the President deploying the Federal National Guard.
The FBI is also run by its own director accountable to Congress not just POTUS
Well he can't
Well, yes he can until such time he ceases to be POTUS
Go away and read some facts about the US law enforcement system before posting again please BigG.
The President does NOT control the US police, state governors and mayors and sheriffs do. The President does not even have full control of the FBI and Federal National Guard, Congress also has oversight as does the FBI Director.
The President does control the army but by that point if he sent in the army against half his nation the US would be headed for a second civil war anyway if Congress had not impeached and convicted him and removed him from office first (and Congress could cut off funds for the army too)
Read up on what he is doing in Minnesota. The reality is that unless Congress exercises its oversight powers, which it is not now doing, then there isn't all that much that any but the biggest states can do to prevent, or even control the paramilitary organisation that is ICE.
You talk about the FBI not being under his control - and yet that organisation actively took control of the investigation of a homicide by an ICE agent, prevented state law enforcement from investigating (or even having access to evidence), and has now declared the investigation closed.
And there appears to be no way in federal law to bring a civil action against either the FBI or ICE o compel investigation.
What they have done is a clear civil rights breach (and therefore criminal under existing federal legislation), but there appears to be no avenue by which a case can be brought, without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice.
There is a slight difference between ICE actions taken against a woman they say was trying to run over one of their officials and Trump cancelling midterm elections without the say so of state governors who control their State national guards and state police.
Management of elections is also not an FBI issue
There is no difference. SA squads are marauding not only at will, they have been granted absolute immunity.
The states no longer have control of what goes on inside their borders. Trump is using Minnesota as the testbed, but the principle is very simple - the government has absolute control.
The government has declared various Dem officials to be seditious traitors and maintains that elections are fraudulent. It is perfectly rational to extend this reality to a place where the state officials are arrested and / or prevented by force from holding elections.
I don't predict these elections will be cancelled. They will say "suspended". Hold them in GOP areas, suspend them in areas full of traitors and insurrectionists. You then get a fully pliant congress where all of the dem seats have expired without an election to replace them. Congress then votes Trump to have extraordinary powers in this time of national emergency (the insurgency) and that is that.
What stops this? Trump is ill. But I doubt the regime would be willing to pack up and go to jail if he dies...
Which is rubbish, state governors can still deploy state guards and state police.
Those Democratic governors and state officials of blue states and purple states will certainly go ahead with elections in November, the President has no power to stop them.
It only needs a handful of GOP representatives to also vote with the Democrats to impeach Trump again.
If not then of course Democratic states would start seceding from the Union and you end up with US civil war 2
You're in a desperate state of denial.
Deploy state guards and police. Against the SA. Who have blanket immunity to shoot people dead. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. Which federalises the MN national guard and removes them from state control.
You can't hold elections in states where federal troops have taken control and arrested the officials who organise elections as terrorists. As he has already declared many of them terrorists why would he allow them to rig the elections against him?
GOP are not going to vote to impeach Trump out of fear as to what will happen to their career and in some cases in fear of what would happen to them and their families. Last time they impeached him nothing happened. We won't even get that far this time.
Hard for states to secede when they are under Martial law.
I know you don't want to accept the evidence of your eyes and ears but it is there.
@snellarthur.bsky.social Rumours out of Davos suggesting that Trump will announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Europe. Of course this may just be a case of unfounded speculation. But if it’s correct, the Krasnov operation has been a staggering success.
I love the optimism of this. Not only is civilisation going to exist in 2027 but it will exist sufficiently to allow PB to judge a competition on the internet! Not just the odd irradiated survivor crawling from hole to hole trying to avoid being eaten but something like normal. Fantastic.
In this positive mindset I will try to submit some wild guesses shortly.
On a side note on that, the UK-Italy-Japan 6th Gen Aircraft programme is potentially quite well positioned for the future, as it is the only non-USA-non-China one which is proceeding somewhat effectively.
Potentially a very good thing if this or a future UK Govt do not salami slice it.
It'll be like Typhoon - an unkillable vampire that drains vast amounts out of the defence budget for about a decade. The only question is which decade? They've missed the 2020s and this thing was supposed to be flying in 2025.
FCAS is looking dead unless it becomes the anointed EUfighter which could happen.
It will do better if Germany is not involved, except as a customer building it under license.
@snellarthur.bsky.social Rumours out of Davos suggesting that Trump will announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Europe. Of course this may just be a case of unfounded speculation. But if it’s correct, the Krasnov operation has been a staggering success.
Well either he withdraws them or they'll get expelled - unless he wants to (a) capitulate on Sudetenland and (b) make amends to NATO allies
I love the optimism of this. Not only is civilisation going to exist in 2027 but it will exist sufficiently to allow PB to judge a competition on the internet! Not just the odd irradiated survivor crawling from hole to hole trying to avoid being eaten but something like normal. Fantastic.
In this positive mindset I will try to submit some wild guesses shortly.
PB is the medium through which the survivors will communicate. As long as RCS keeps paying the Cloud bills...
Off topic (but the button to flag it has gone, so tough luck), here’s an interesting post just made by Martin Lewis (of Money Saving Expert) about an online survey he recently did, on multiple platforms, asking people whether they would now vote to leave or remain, and whether they wish to align with the EU or US. It was open to anyone to respond, but you’d expect the algorithm would direct his posts mostly towards people based in the UK. He’s divided the responses by platform, from which we can see that Facebook got the significantly biggest response, and that the views of people who responded on X are markedly different from those responding on other platforms:
#competition: 1: 20 2: 6 3: 64 4: 26 5: Reform; 14 6: 11 7: 9 8: Sir Keir Starmer 9: No 10: £138bn 11: 1.6 12: Argentina
Thanks Ben!
Interesting answers to 6. and 8! You're predicting that Labour's NEV will be a mere 11% in May, and yet Starmer will still be in post at the end of the year. I reckon one of those will be wrong.
Of course, the Chagos deal would definitely have been sent to the US for approval, so one can understand Sir Keir's exasperation that Donald is now dumping upon him from a massive height. As for the stance of Kemi and Nigel: it might have been better for them to have resisted the temptation to pile in on Sir Keir, as it rather looks like they're siding with the Devil.
The way events are unfolding we are going to need a government of national unity
I was musing on what would have been the questions in the "Political Wagering Noticeboard Challenge" in January 1939. Would Mr Chamberlain go to the country this year, or wait until 1940? That sort of thing.
We're not there yet, of course, and the World-war-two-nu didn't start for a while.
Off topic (but the button to flag it has gone, so tough luck), here’s an interesting post just made by Martin Lewis (of Money Saving Expert) about an online survey he recently did, on multiple platforms, asking people whether they would now vote to leave or remain, and whether they wish to align with the EU or US. It was open to anyone to respond, but you’d expect the algorithm would direct his posts mostly towards people based in the UK. He’s divided the responses by platform, from which we can see that Facebook got the significantly biggest response, and that the views of people who responded on X are markedly different from those responding on other platforms:
I'm not leaning either way. Dry January has me entirely and uncharacteristically upright.
@snellarthur.bsky.social Rumours out of Davos suggesting that Trump will announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Europe. Of course this may just be a case of unfounded speculation. But if it’s correct, the Krasnov operation has been a staggering success.
Perhaps he doesn’t know that it would cost the US significantly much more to have all those troops based within the US than it does having them posted overseas?
The way events are unfolding we are going to need a government of national unity
The government has the full support of the only parties that are on the UK's side against the US on this. No need for Badenoch or Davey to be in government.
Farage, I assume, would be the opposition to the government of national unity. On the side of Trump.
While never mentioning the T-word (Trump), Emmanuel Macron today attacked “bullies” who were trying to impose the “law of the strongest” and to “weaken Europe”. /1
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Macron said Europeans preferred “respect to bullies”. 2/
“The crazy thing is that (the EU) could be forced to use its anti-coercion mechanism for the first time” to respond the “threat of tariffs by an ally," Macron said. 3/
The French deployment of a handful of soldiers to Greenland last week - the cause of Trump’s threats to the eight European countries – was to “support an ally and another European country – not to threaten any one,” he said. 4/
Wearing dark glasses to protect an eye complaint, Macron rejected what he described as a “new colonial approach” which wanted to “impose the law of the strongest.” 5/
At no point in his speech – which mostly coveted Macron’s long standing argument for more European economic sovereignty – did the French president refer to Donald Trump by name. ENDS
#competition: 1: 20 2: 6 3: 64 4: 26 5: Reform; 14 6: 11 7: 9 8: Sir Keir Starmer 9: No 10: £138bn 11: 1.6 12: Argentina
Thanks Ben!
Interesting answers to 6. and 8! You're predicting that Labour's NEV will be a mere 11% in May, and yet Starmer will still be in post at the end of the year. I reckon one of those will be wrong.
He’s hedging his bets and hoping to win by coming through the middle?
This notion of Trump declaring that he is pulling US armed forces out of Europe. That is the withdrawal of the US from NATO - I have little doubt that the regime will try and declare NATO to be over, but we will meet and formulate a new resolute declaration that the mission continues.
What does that mean practically? The US would have to be excluded from intelligence, from air defence, from military co-operation. As a minimum. Can that even be done overnight?
Playing out the scenario it would seem likely that this would force the US to seize key installations. On paper the US needs the BMEWS network including Thule and Fylingdales, as well as the Canadian installations in places such as North Bay. In practice as they are allied with Russia why would they need warning systems?
But let's assume the Joint Chiefs demand it and Trumpler wants a display of strength. That means seizing Greenland. And you saw that map put out overnight with Canada as American? Yeah.
We're making Greenland a line in the sand and rightly so. But if Trump pushes over it then are we in shooting war territory to defend Canada from the US?
As @DavidL points out, the competition is an optimistic ray of light in an otherwise gloomy world.
NEW: Keir Starmer is concerned by Putin and Lukashenko being invited to Trump’s Board of Peace, his spokesman says
The UK is not joining the board as things stand
Spox says UK’s commitment to UN is “unwavering”
Trump’s peace board falling apart 48 hours before signing ceremony
Not entirely sure that us not playing is enough to have the Board "falling apart" but the correct move by Starmer. Hopefully others will follow our lead.
NEW: Keir Starmer is concerned by Putin and Lukashenko being invited to Trump’s Board of Peace, his spokesman says
The UK is not joining the board as things stand
Spox says UK’s commitment to UN is “unwavering”
Trump’s peace board falling apart 48 hours before signing ceremony
Not entirely sure that us not playing is enough to have the Board "falling apart" but the correct move by Starmer. Hopefully others will follow our lead.
This notion of Trump declaring that he is pulling US armed forces out of Europe. That is the withdrawal of the US from NATO - I have little doubt that the regime will try and declare NATO to be over, but we will meet and formulate a new resolute declaration that the mission continues.
What does that mean practically? The US would have to be excluded from intelligence, from air defence, from military co-operation. As a minimum. Can that even be done overnight?
Playing out the scenario it would seem likely that this would force the US to seize key installations. On paper the US needs the BMEWS network including Thule and Fylingdales, as well as the Canadian installations in places such as North Bay. In practice as they are allied with Russia why would they need warning systems?
But let's assume the Joint Chiefs demand it and Trumpler wants a display of strength. That means seizing Greenland. And you saw that map put out overnight with Canada as American? Yeah.
We're making Greenland a line in the sand and rightly so. But if Trump pushes over it then are we in shooting war territory to defend Canada from the US?
As @DavidL points out, the competition is an optimistic ray of light in an otherwise gloomy world.
Canada is a whole different matter. Canada means US casualties. Many, many of them. Canadians are armed.
Of course, the Chagos deal would definitely have been sent to the US for approval, so one can understand Sir Keir's exasperation that Donald is now dumping upon him from a massive height. As for the stance of Kemi and Nigel: it might have been better for them to have resisted the temptation to pile in on Sir Keir, as it rather looks like they're siding with the Devil.
The Kembot artfully does not say that a future tory government, presumably led by an as yet unborn Brandreth, would renege on the Chagos agreement. She has to balance arse licking Trump with arse licking whomever will be POTUS if they ever get back into government.
He's had so much enough that he's said something and done nothing.
A good time then to revisit this issue.
Is this the same Belgium PM that, partly at the behest of the United States, deliberately sabotaged European efforts to finance Ukraine - and therefore help secure a vital European strategic interest - with frozen Russian funds? https://x.com/JimmySecUK/status/2013598177341980847
Our Ange on manoeuvres here, over the tragedy of leasehold.
To be fair some leasehold charges are very high. Especially on newer building.
However, like the Renters so-called Reform bill this seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If it wasn’t for the ‘rich investors’ there wouldn’t even be the homes. Still there’s votes in pitching so-called rich investors or landlords against hard working, downtrodden, leaseholders.
He's had so much enough that he's said something and done nothing.
A good time then to revisit this issue.
Is this the same Belgium PM that, partly at the behest of the United States, deliberately sabotaged European efforts to finance Ukraine - and therefore help secure a vital European strategic interest - with frozen Russian funds? https://x.com/JimmySecUK/status/2013598177341980847
'Wage growth in the UK eased to 4.5% between September and November, official figures suggest, following a sharp slowdown in private sector pay increases.
The pace of pay growth for those employed by private businesses slowed to the lowest rate in five years, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
In contrast, public sector workers saw their wages jump but, the ONS said, this was likely due to pay rises being awarded earlier than in the previous year.
Meanwhile, the number of people on company payrolls continued to fall - down 135,000 in the three months to November - with a particular decline in shops and hospitality....The ONS data showed a stark contrast between public and private pay growth in the three months to November.
Annual average public sector pay growth was 7.9% compared to 3.6% for the private sector.'
As ever the people who produce are stiffed by those who suck at the public teat. Unlimited cash to give them rises at twice the private sector and of course more of them on higher salaries whilst the private companies don't have a magic money tree and have to balance the books.
NEW: Keir Starmer is concerned by Putin and Lukashenko being invited to Trump’s Board of Peace, his spokesman says
The UK is not joining the board as things stand
Spox says UK’s commitment to UN is “unwavering”
Trump’s peace board falling apart 48 hours before signing ceremony
Not entirely sure that us not playing is enough to have the Board "falling apart" but the correct move by Starmer. Hopefully others will follow our lead.
This notion of Trump declaring that he is pulling US armed forces out of Europe. That is the withdrawal of the US from NATO - I have little doubt that the regime will try and declare NATO to be over, but we will meet and formulate a new resolute declaration that the mission continues.
What does that mean practically? The US would have to be excluded from intelligence, from air defence, from military co-operation. As a minimum. Can that even be done overnight?
Playing out the scenario it would seem likely that this would force the US to seize key installations. On paper the US needs the BMEWS network including Thule and Fylingdales, as well as the Canadian installations in places such as North Bay. In practice as they are allied with Russia why would they need warning systems?
But let's assume the Joint Chiefs demand it and Trumpler wants a display of strength. That means seizing Greenland. And you saw that map put out overnight with Canada as American? Yeah.
We're making Greenland a line in the sand and rightly so. But if Trump pushes over it then are we in shooting war territory to defend Canada from the US?
As @DavidL points out, the competition is an optimistic ray of light in an otherwise gloomy world.
Canada is a whole different matter. Canada means US casualties. Many, many of them. Canadians are armed.
He's had so much enough that he's said something and done nothing.
A good time then to revisit this issue.
Is this the same Belgium PM that, partly at the behest of the United States, deliberately sabotaged European efforts to finance Ukraine - and therefore help secure a vital European strategic interest - with frozen Russian funds? https://x.com/JimmySecUK/status/2013598177341980847
There must be a chance the Russians have some serious dirt on this guy and he's struggling with it. Hence the "dignity" line.
'Wage growth in the UK eased to 4.5% between September and November, official figures suggest, following a sharp slowdown in private sector pay increases.
The pace of pay growth for those employed by private businesses slowed to the lowest rate in five years, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
In contrast, public sector workers saw their wages jump but, the ONS said, this was likely due to pay rises being awarded earlier than in the previous year.
Meanwhile, the number of people on company payrolls continued to fall - down 135,000 in the three months to November - with a particular decline in shops and hospitality....The ONS data showed a stark contrast between public and private pay growth in the three months to November.
Annual average public sector pay growth was 7.9% compared to 3.6% for the private sector.'
As ever the people who produce are stiffed by those who suck at the public teat. Unlimited cash to give them rises at twice the private sector and of course more of them on higher salaries whilst the private companies don't have a magic money tree and have to balance the books.
Don’t forget the near 30% employer pension contribution too, and the increments and the extra holidays.
"The Canadian Armed Forces have modelled a hypothetical U.S. military invasion of Canada and the country’s potential response, which includes tactics similar to those employed against Russia and later U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, two senior government officials say."
'Wage growth in the UK eased to 4.5% between September and November, official figures suggest, following a sharp slowdown in private sector pay increases.
The pace of pay growth for those employed by private businesses slowed to the lowest rate in five years, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
In contrast, public sector workers saw their wages jump but, the ONS said, this was likely due to pay rises being awarded earlier than in the previous year.
Meanwhile, the number of people on company payrolls continued to fall - down 135,000 in the three months to November - with a particular decline in shops and hospitality....The ONS data showed a stark contrast between public and private pay growth in the three months to November.
Annual average public sector pay growth was 7.9% compared to 3.6% for the private sector.'
As ever the people who produce are stiffed by those who suck at the public teat. Unlimited cash to give them rises at twice the private sector and of course more of them on higher salaries whilst the private companies don't have a magic money tree and have to balance the books.
Public sector salaries always lag the private sector - this is just a function of the inflation and wage growth of the last few years catching up. See chart 4 here:
You can make a general point about people in the public sector getting paid too much, conditions etc, but the pay increases at the moment aren't a fair reflection of the underlying trend.
Comments
26% of Green voters support "Military retaliation in an attempt to retake Greenland by force" in the event that the US seizes Greenland militarily.
Given that Green voters skew young - those most likely to be directly involved in any fighting - it's particularly notable.
Accept it: 5%
Respond diplomatically only: 33%
Retaliate economically: 30%
Retaliate militarily: 14%'
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2013579809121607946?s=20
18% of Reform voters say accept it as do 8% of Tories and 38% of Reform voters say respond diplomatically only as do 46% of Tories.
44% of LDs and 40% of Labour voters and 28% of Greens back economic retaliation against the US, 26% of Green voters and 17% of Labour and 16% of LD voters back military retaliation against the US
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2013579811378082184?s=20
Oh, and the more you look into defence spending since 2001, the worse it looks for Europe.
I suspect they’re Ukranian and Polish.
Told me yesterday he'd applied to the Navy. The world situation has radically changed for him recently.
Most Labour and LD and Green voters back economic sanctions or even going to war with the US in response
The results would be fascinating, and we could also settle once and for all those questions of whether this place is a roiling mass of MAGA apologists or a woke centrist dad village.
Premier of Greenland will hold press conference at 11am Greenlandic time, with ‘status update on the situation’
Trump built the electoral coalition which the Democrats have been trying to rebuild for years and he's thrown it all away. Yes he has the Karen vote and the bigot vote, but that's all. Latino and Black voters came out heavily for him and that is over.
So any electoral cycle run openly and fairly would indeed give the democrats a landslide, with every consequence you can think of following it. Which is why I discount that as a likely scenario. Never before even a question, but now the most unlikely option.
CNBC: McConnell has said that if the president moves on Greenland, this would something that Republican senators would impeach him on. Are you in that camp?
TILLIS: I'm not going to go to impeachment. Let's say it was a kinetic action -- I'd immediately go for a War Powers resolution.
Those Democratic governors and state officials of blue states and purple states will certainly go ahead with elections in November, the President has no power to stop them.
It only needs a handful of GOP representatives to also vote with the Democrats to impeach Trump again.
If not then of course Democratic states would start seceding from the Union and you end up with US civil war 2
1. We’re cool here thanks
2. Let’s discuss things?
3. Please don’t invade
4. Invasion will be met with force.
NY Times
All cash deal
If Trump decides on that course of action I expect there would be turmoil in the USA . The markets would crash globally and economic sanctions would need to placed against the USA .
We of course would suffer economically in the UK but you simply can’t allow Trump a free pass . The hope would be the economic pain would hurt the GOP and if the mid-terms actually go ahead voters can deliver their verdict .
Historical sensibility tells us it is the barbarians who storm the gates. In today’s America, it is the other way round. Inside the citadel, the hordes are incinerating America’s traditions of law, civility and restraint. The civic-minded cry in the wilderness. Measured by the old era’s conventions, US President Donald Trump’s bonfire is only a quarter of the way through. Like so much else — the US Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center, the Versailles-style White House ballroom, other people’s Nobel Prizes — Trump is rebranding the US as his own. As America prepares to commemorate its 250th anniversary, the republic is flirting with its own funeral.
https://www.ft.com/content/dedebe06-bc23-4eba-a878-d36eaf5c6e21
Potentially a very good thing if this or a future UK Govt do not salami slice it.
1. 25
2. 2
3. 53
4. 25
5. 14pp Reform
6. 23%
7. 12
8. Sir Keir Starmer
9. No
10. £112bn
11. 1.4%
12. Argentina.
Thanks Ben!
OLB.
Deploy state guards and police. Against the SA. Who have blanket immunity to shoot people dead. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. Which federalises the MN national guard and removes them from state control.
You can't hold elections in states where federal troops have taken control and arrested the officials who organise elections as terrorists. As he has already declared many of them terrorists why would he allow them to rig the elections against him?
GOP are not going to vote to impeach Trump out of fear as to what will happen to their career and in some cases in fear of what would happen to them and their families. Last time they impeached him nothing happened. We won't even get that far this time.
Hard for states to secede when they are under Martial law.
I know you don't want to accept the evidence of your eyes and ears but it is there.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Coming-Third-Reich-Destroyed-Democracy-ebook
No direct parallels, but an illustration of how the entire fabric of a democratic state can be captured or cast aside in less than a year, starting from a position without actual majority power. People like you who tried to say “you can’t do that” either got beaten up in their own home, or found themselves in Dachau.
It's sort of semi-rural, but also with industrial history.
* It may be true; I have no idea.
FCAS is looking dead unless it becomes the anointed EUfighter which could happen.
1: 20
2: 6
3: 64
4: 26
5: Reform; 14
6: 11
7: 9
8: Sir Keir Starmer
9: No
10: £138bn
11: 1.6
12: Argentina
Thanks Ben!
European airforces, including our own, are heavily committed to the F35, which it's not realistic to replace for decades.
We couldn't afford to cancel the Chinook (£1.8bn) order and replace it with something else. Not can we easily decouple from our deep ties with US defence manufacturing in general.
The only realistic way to do that, without doing ourselves more damage than anything we might do to the US, is for future orders.
Europe is better positioned than we are in that respect, but much the same applies.
The saving grace from our POV is that we've barely started to ramp up defence spending. Any increases should be spent on this side of the Atlantic (which is pretty well what Europe is trying to do too).
https://bsky.app/profile/jamesrball.com/post/3mcu73eozak2e
He ploughs on with his ill thought arguments against well argued counter arguments from other posters
Maybe someday he will recognise he is wrong but I am not holding my breath
Rumours out of Davos suggesting that Trump will announce a withdrawal of all US troops from Europe. Of course this may just be a case of unfounded speculation. But if it’s correct, the Krasnov operation has been a staggering success.
What just moved bonds?
Oh
*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES
NEW: Keir Starmer is concerned by Putin and Lukashenko being invited to Trump’s Board of Peace, his spokesman says
The UK is not joining the board as things stand
Spox says UK’s commitment to UN is “unwavering”
Trump’s peace board falling apart 48 hours before signing ceremony
In this positive mindset I will try to submit some wild guesses shortly.
Or not.
We're not there yet, of course, and the World-war-two-nu didn't start for a while.
Farage, I assume, would be the opposition to the government of national unity. On the side of Trump.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Macron said Europeans preferred “respect to bullies”. 2/
“The crazy thing is that (the EU) could be forced to use its anti-coercion mechanism for the first time” to respond the “threat of tariffs by an ally," Macron said. 3/
The French deployment of a handful of soldiers to Greenland last week - the cause of Trump’s threats to the eight European countries – was to “support an ally and another European country – not to threaten any one,” he said. 4/
Wearing dark glasses to protect an eye complaint, Macron rejected what he described as a “new colonial approach” which wanted to “impose the law of the strongest.” 5/
At no point in his speech – which mostly coveted Macron’s long standing argument for more European economic sovereignty – did the French president refer to Donald Trump by name. ENDS
https://bsky.app/profile/mijrahman.bsky.social/post/3mcuchpemak26
Seriously though what’s the point of them there given the US would have no intention of coming to Europes defence .
What does that mean practically? The US would have to be excluded from intelligence, from air defence, from military co-operation. As a minimum. Can that even be done overnight?
Playing out the scenario it would seem likely that this would force the US to seize key installations. On paper the US needs the BMEWS network including Thule and Fylingdales, as well as the Canadian installations in places such as North Bay. In practice as they are allied with Russia why would they need warning systems?
But let's assume the Joint Chiefs demand it and Trumpler wants a display of strength. That means seizing Greenland. And you saw that map put out overnight with Canada as American? Yeah.
We're making Greenland a line in the sand and rightly so. But if Trump pushes over it then are we in shooting war territory to defend Canada from the US?
As @DavidL points out, the competition is an optimistic ray of light in an otherwise gloomy world.
Canada means US casualties. Many, many of them.
Canadians are armed.
Is this the same Belgium PM that, partly at the behest of the United States, deliberately sabotaged European efforts to finance Ukraine - and therefore help secure a vital European strategic interest - with frozen Russian funds?
https://x.com/JimmySecUK/status/2013598177341980847
To be fair some leasehold charges are very high. Especially on newer building.
However, like the Renters so-called Reform bill this seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If it wasn’t for the ‘rich investors’ there wouldn’t even be the homes. Still there’s votes in pitching so-called rich investors or landlords against hard working, downtrodden, leaseholders.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/20/labour-party-rich-investors-hard-working-leaseholders
Trump would though
Kemi Badenoch tells the BBC's Matt Chorley that if she were prime minister, Donald Trump would simply not be like this.
https://bsky.app/profile/roberthutton.co.uk/post/3mcuaygzaus2e
Billionaire investor Ray Dalio warns Trump’s actions could lead to economic disaster for the US.
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mcudigmf722w
If they aren't going to come to our* aid if Putin invades another European country, then they can fuck off.
*that assumes they don't come to Putin's aid...
"The Canadian Armed Forces have modelled a hypothetical U.S. military invasion of Canada and the country’s potential response, which includes tactics similar to those employed against Russia and later U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, two senior government officials say."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/january2026
You can make a general point about people in the public sector getting paid too much, conditions etc, but the pay increases at the moment aren't a fair reflection of the underlying trend.