The local by-elections tomorrow are: Con defence in Cheshire East and Chester, Green defence in Cotswold, SNP defence in Fife, Lab defence in Flintshire, and Con defence in South Norfolk.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I think I have a bit of a man crush. This may prove to be the most important political speech of the decade. The comment about how "middle powers" compete to get the best deal from the unnamed hegemon must have made Starmer wince. Was that 5% less of a tariff really worth our dignity, our independence, our sovereignty? Carney shows a much, much better way forward and we need to take it.
Apart from anything else it was a pleasure to listen to someone who knew how to use the English language, especially after listening to the rantings of a pub bore last night for about an hour.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
What a hypothetical parcel of scottish rogues would have taken isn't really relevant. We're talking here about a people that are so determined to live on sheet ice they used to starve their grandparents to death rather than move somewhere warmer. 100k ain't worth it, it's a stupidly expensive place to live without all the subsidies that would immediately disappear. Break your leg and need a helicopter evacuation and you've lost it (or your grandkids pretend not to have seen you). 1m would perhaps do it.
If it meant becoming part of the USA, the payment would need to factor in all the increased expenses associated with being part of a country that sees its people as customers to be ripped off at every point..
The local by-elections tomorrow are: Con defence in Cheshire East and Chester, Green defence in Cotswold, SNP defence in Fife, Lab defence in Flintshire, and Con defence in South Norfolk.
Unusually, no prospects at all for the LDs this week
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
Trump hinting that America has new super weapons. I’ve heard this elsewhere
WTF
You know who else was always hinting about Wunderwaffe?
I would dismiss it as a Trumpism on ketamine but there are wild online rumours that the US special forces did something to totally disable and terrify the Cuban guards around Maduro, allowing them to be slaughtered at will. Thus the insane disparity in body count. Dozens of Cubans dead, and maybe zero yanks?
Today Trump said he would not use force to invade Greenland. Obvs we all know that such promises are worthless but it places the rest of NATO/EU etc in an interesting situation. (Especially Canada, who are next in line after greenland.)
It is tempting, I suggest, for normal, currently bullied countries to say 'Thanks. Let's talk options about Greenland, nothing off the table except war'.
I think that would be an error. The bully has made a mistake (for a bully). The bullied should not let go and should push further and take advantage of Trump's error. Now is the time to emphasise that no discussion is possible on the sovereignty status of Greenland. Full stop. Push back.
If Biden had given this speech we’d be getting spammed by the usual suspects about Biden being unfit for the presidency.
Trump sounded demented, like Biden, yesterday, now he sounds totally lucid and his normal self. Boorish, arrogant, sometimes weirdly funny, narcissistic to a pathological degree, occasionally warped, but also offering some sharp and painful insights for Europeans
Demented, no
Sounds like you are also demented if you think that crap is uttered by someone in control of their faculties.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
Really? I struggle to believe he’d choose this battle to side with Trump.
People think Farage doesn't have any principles. He does! His principle is to suck up to Trump.
The New World Order Rules: (1) It is possible and logical to suck up to Putin and Trump at the same time. (2) Carney is the leader of the Alternative World Order.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
It could also act as a cap on his ceiling. But the current Reform polling gives them a landslide majority in seat predictions, so a capped ceiling isn’t sufficient, you also need consolidation of the other parties.
Labour don’t stand to gain because of Starmer’s softly softly approach to Trump.
Trump is being unusually articulate and is totally putting the boot into Europe and the UK
He’s also being quite funny
he sounds like a senile old geriatric, mad as a bag of frogs and no grasp on reality
You'd have to have a staggeringly low IQ not to be able to see how ignorant, both of history, economy, and culture, was that rambling hour-and-a-half of utter bilge from Trump.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Yes, although I wonder if that would then result in support switching to Rupert Lowe and Co. He doesn’t have the name recognition, but with Farage out of the picture I could see him getting a decent polling position together (I’m not sure he would have the popular appeal to lead the polls though).
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
It could also act as a cap on his ceiling. But the current Reform polling gives them a landslide majority in seat predictions, so a capped ceiling isn’t sufficient, you also need consolidation of the other parties.
Labour don’t stand to gain because of Starmer’s softly softly approach to Trump.
I think we're in known unknown territory with this. We don't know how this is going to play out, and how other events Trump has set in motion will interact with it, but it definitely increases the downside risk for Reform support. You can see a plausible path to it falling apart that wasn't visible before.
But Trump may mostly stop talking about it after today. How do you predict what he will do?
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Yes, although I wonder if that would then result in support switching to Rupert Lowe and Co. He doesn’t have the name recognition, but with Farage out of the picture I could see him getting a decent polling position together (I’m not sure he would have the popular appeal to lead the polls though).
There's quite likely 5-10% support for a slick, well-funded, competently-run, far-right, Farage-free party. Maybe more than that if there are currently somewhat obscure figures with popular appeal who would gain more prominence with Farage off the stage.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Yes, although I wonder if that would then result in support switching to Rupert Lowe and Co. He doesn’t have the name recognition, but with Farage out of the picture I could see him getting a decent polling position together (I’m not sure he would have the popular appeal to lead the polls though).
I don't think Farage will be going anywhere for the time being. Reform are the protest party of choice and the electorate still has a lot of protesting it wants to do, (even if Kemi is slowly working herself and, ultimately, the Tories into a better position.)
But in the meantime Reform are still heading for a pretty stonking result in May and Nige will enjoy presiding over that. The main thing is that the Tories have saved themselves from possible extinction but there's still a fair bit of humble pie to go round.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Yes, although I wonder if that would then result in support switching to Rupert Lowe and Co. He doesn’t have the name recognition, but with Farage out of the picture I could see him getting a decent polling position together (I’m not sure he would have the popular appeal to lead the polls though).
There's quite likely 5-10% support for a slick, well-funded, competently-run, far-right, Farage-free party. Maybe more than that if there are currently somewhat obscure figures with popular appeal who would gain more prominence with Farage off the stage.
I can't recall us ever having one, TBH. All the time I've been around politics the 'far right' has been somewhat Tommy Ninenames-ish. The only 'respectable' group I can recall was something in the early 1950's called the League of Empire Loyalists, who, IIRC, wanted to 'take back 'India. Among other somewhat batty things.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Yes, although I wonder if that would then result in support switching to Rupert Lowe and Co. He doesn’t have the name recognition, but with Farage out of the picture I could see him getting a decent polling position together (I’m not sure he would have the popular appeal to lead the polls though).
Does that idea only work if Lowe distances himself from Trump/Putin, which I don't see happening?
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
After journalists noticed Trump got confused 3 times in his speech, the press secretary has been tweeting out that Greenland is a big block of ice. He wasn't confused...
Who do they think is buying this shit? (apart from Leon, obviously)
After journalists noticed Trump got confused 3 times in his speech, the press secretary has been tweeting out that Greenland is a big block of ice. He wasn't confused...
Who do they think is buying this shit? (apart from Leon, obviously)
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
After journalists noticed Trump got confused 3 times in his speech, the press secretary has been tweeting out that Greenland is a big block of ice. He wasn't confused...
Who do they think is buying this shit? (apart from Leon, obviously)
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
Germany follow France and the UK in declining to join the « Board of Peace »
Is there any chance that Trump climbing down on the use force in Greenland just after Carney's speech of the decade, and the day after Trump's annual speech day demented ramble is the moment that marks the end of peak Trump?
I suppose not. But it is certainly a moment. and a moment to take advantage of.
Germany follow France and the UK in declining to join the « Board of Peace »
Is there any chance that Trump climbing down on the use force in Greenland just after Carney's speech of the decade, and the day after Trump's annual speech day demented ramble is the moment that marks the end of peak Trump?
I suppose not. But it is certainly a moment. and a moment to take advantage of.
The news cycle will turn to the coming bombing of Iran in the next few days. USS Abraham Lincoln inches closer…
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Tory Majority and Badenoch next PM are strong bets, the latter probably more for trading value as Starmer may go in 2027.
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
we are their lapdog and will get fcuked over
I sincerely hope you're not a dog owner
No dogs for me
..
Looks painful
You have to admire the dedication though. The poor dog must have been at that for ages.
The US is already in Greenland. Farage being a disingenuous arse.
What a great day to bury bad news. Like Farage being censured by the Parliamentary Standards Tsar for seventeen breaches of financial reporting protocols.
I’d like to think this is his Corbyn on Skripal moment, but I fear it won’t be. There’s a hard core of his support base that probably agrees with Trump, particularly if led there by Farage.
Corbyn went from 40% at GE2017 to 32.1% at GE2019, thus losing one-fifth of his support.
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
I think it would take quite a lot for Reform to go away completely. The question is whether they decline enough to allow the other parties to get back into the game. I don’t think it would take a lot to see Lab & Con back around 25% each, for instance, with Reform back on 20%. But still a lot can happen yet.
The one thing that would send Reform away completely is for Farage to decide it isn't worth the bother, he doesn't need it for the grifting, becoming PM is out of reach and he'll have more fun spending his money.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Yes, although I wonder if that would then result in support switching to Rupert Lowe and Co. He doesn’t have the name recognition, but with Farage out of the picture I could see him getting a decent polling position together (I’m not sure he would have the popular appeal to lead the polls though).
There's quite likely 5-10% support for a slick, well-funded, competently-run, far-right, Farage-free party. Maybe more than that if there are currently somewhat obscure figures with popular appeal who would gain more prominence with Farage off the stage.
Lowe would need to get the media coverage currently devoted to Reform in order to lead the polls, or even get close.
Very funny though Donald Trump. I mean, that line about if it weren't for the US "you'd all be speaking German" - zinger or what. We shouldn't let political antipathy prevent appreciation for some sharp wit.
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
we are their lapdog and will get fcuked over
I sincerely hope you're not a dog owner
No dogs for me
..
Looks painful
You have to admire the dedication though. The poor dog must have been at that for ages.
I read that as “You have to admire the defecation though.”
I've just read Carney's speech which is intriguing in extremis. It is, as many speeches are, long on generalities and short on specifics. Long on platitudes and slogans, short on practical solutions but he's speaking at Davos where the platitude is king.
We aren't all Canada in terms of what we can bring to the table but every "middle" country (by which presumably he excludes the USA and China) has something to offer and it's a brave attempt to redefine bi-lateal and multi-lateral relationships. It's a damning indictment of how western (and other) countries have tried to appease both America and China in recent years.
It also redefines narrow notions of sovereignty which won't go down well with many here.
Whether it comes to be seen as the 2020s equivalent of Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from the winter of 1946 remains to be seen but it's a challenging series of ideas for many countries and a call perhaps to evolve from the post-1945 and even post-1989 mindsets to a more flexible inter-dependency and collaboration for the mid 21st century.
@jimsciutto Danish FM Rasmussen says Denmark’s read of Trump’s speech is he still wants Greenland: “What was quite clear after this speech is that the president's (Donald Trump) ambition is intact. Of course, it is positive, in isolation, that it is said that he will not use military force. Of course, that has to be noted.”
So confirmed, no bounce for Reform from Jenrick's defection and that new Focaldata is even worse for Farage than YG and MiC were with Reform actually losing 3% of their voteshare since gaining Jenrick and Rosindell.
Also a far better poll for Kemi with the Tories the biggest gainers, up 2%. Good poll for Starmer as well with Labour up 1% and also just 5% behind Reform.
Good for Davey with the LDs up 1% as well and bad for Polanski with the Greens down 2%
Jenrick's flounce is starting to look seriously ill-timed.
tells me Trump's speech in Davos convinced him the US needs to control Greenland. "We're not going to take Greenland by force, but we need Greenland for very good reasons. If I were Denmark, I would be thinking, if I can work a deal with America and the Greenland people -- we have no desire to change your culture, we have no dtesire to change who you are -- we do need ownership. He's convinced me that if we own this piece of land," he said in @davos .
Between this and the Board of Peace nonsense it is possible that we are seeing the first steps of Carney's call to arms being responded to. There is a definite change of tone, as we saw when Starmer called out the threat of tariffs re Greenland in, for him, pretty blunt terms.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
* cough *
Having been posting about Trump’s rambling diatribe, which began just as this thread went live, I’ve now had the chance to listen to Carney’s speech as featured in the lead. Which was masterful - full of long words and metaphors that those with low IQ - whether in the White House or on PB - would struggle to follow, yet a clear call for action nevertheless. The bottom line, the ‘middle’ nations of the democratic world either hang together, or we get hanged separately. Time for everyone to step up.
Gosh, not long words and metaphors. I can see why it resulted in such bossom heaving here.
I've just read Carney's speech which is intriguing in extremis. It is, as many speeches are, long on generalities and short on specifics. Long on platitudes and slogans, short on practical solutions but he's speaking at Davos where the platitude is king.
We aren't all Canada in terms of what we can bring to the table but every "middle" country (by which presumably he excludes the USA and China) has something to offer and it's a brave attempt to redefine bi-lateal and multi-lateral relationships. It's a damning indictment of how western (and other) countries have tried to appease both America and China in recent years.
It also redefines narrow notions of sovereignty which won't go down well with many here.
Whether it comes to be seen as the 2020s equivalent of Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from the winter of 1946 remains to be seen but it's a challenging series of ideas for many countries and a call perhaps to evolve from the post-1945 and even post-1989 mindsets to a more flexible inter-dependency and collaboration for the mid 21st century.
There was a paricularly striking line to the effect that those seeking greater sovereignity were likely to end up with greater subservience. That will certainly resonate with many here who have engaged so often and so passionately in sovereignity debates in a somewhat different context.
So confirmed, no bounce for Reform from Jenrick's defection and that new Focaldata is even worse for Farage than YG and MiC were with Reform actually losing 3% of their voteshare since gaining Jenrick and Rosindell.
Also a far better poll for Kemi with the Tories the biggest gainers, up 2%. Good poll for Starmer as well with Labour up 1% and also just 5% behind Reform.
Good for Davey with the LDs up 1% as well and bad for Polanski with the Greens down 2%
Jenrick's flounce is starting to look seriously ill-timed.
Possibly whenever Jenrick flounced the polls would move this way......just saying......
Between this and the Board of Peace nonsense it is possible that we are seeing the first steps of Carney's call to arms being responded to. There is a definite change of tone, as we saw when Starmer called out the threat of tariffs re Greenland in, for him, pretty blunt terms.
I've just read Carney's speech which is intriguing in extremis. It is, as many speeches are, long on generalities and short on specifics. Long on platitudes and slogans, short on practical solutions but he's speaking at Davos where the platitude is king.
We aren't all Canada in terms of what we can bring to the table but every "middle" country (by which presumably he excludes the USA and China) has something to offer and it's a brave attempt to redefine bi-lateal and multi-lateral relationships. It's a damning indictment of how western (and other) countries have tried to appease both America and China in recent years.
It also redefines narrow notions of sovereignty which won't go down well with many here.
Whether it comes to be seen as the 2020s equivalent of Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from the winter of 1946 remains to be seen but it's a challenging series of ideas for many countries and a call perhaps to evolve from the post-1945 and even post-1989 mindsets to a more flexible inter-dependency and collaboration for the mid 21st century.
It's a useful prism to look at things, and make political choices. And challenges all our political parties in different ways. Essentially, he's saying we have to move at pace towards food and energy independence, and build up our militaries.
That has implications for the move away from North Sea oil and gas, our approach to agriculture, building up our infrastructure and indigenous industry, and being smart about how we strengthen our military and reduce dependence on the US. It must surely also have implications for our approach to welfare spending and business taxation.
So confirmed, no bounce for Reform from Jenrick's defection and that new Focaldata is even worse for Farage than YG and MiC were with Reform actually losing 3% of their voteshare since gaining Jenrick and Rosindell.
Also a far better poll for Kemi with the Tories the biggest gainers, up 2%. Good poll for Starmer as well with Labour up 1% and also just 5% behind Reform.
Good for Davey with the LDs up 1% as well and bad for Polanski with the Greens down 2%
Jenrick's flounce is starting to look seriously ill-timed.
Nothing to do with timing. Jenrick is widely despised.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
At $1m it works. At $250k it might work. At $100k it fails.
I've just read Carney's speech which is intriguing in extremis. It is, as many speeches are, long on generalities and short on specifics. Long on platitudes and slogans, short on practical solutions but he's speaking at Davos where the platitude is king.
We aren't all Canada in terms of what we can bring to the table but every "middle" country (by which presumably he excludes the USA and China) has something to offer and it's a brave attempt to redefine bi-lateal and multi-lateral relationships. It's a damning indictment of how western (and other) countries have tried to appease both America and China in recent years.
It also redefines narrow notions of sovereignty which won't go down well with many here.
Whether it comes to be seen as the 2020s equivalent of Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from the winter of 1946 remains to be seen but it's a challenging series of ideas for many countries and a call perhaps to evolve from the post-1945 and even post-1989 mindsets to a more flexible inter-dependency and collaboration for the mid 21st century.
It's a useful prism to look at things, and make political choices. And challenges all our political parties in different ways. Essentially, he's saying we have to move at pace towards food and energy independence, and build up our militaries.
That has implications for the move away from North Sea oil and gas, our approach to agriculture, building up our infrastructure and indigenous industry, and being smart about how we strengthen our military and reduce dependence on the US. It must surely also have implications for our approach to welfare spending and business taxation.
A lot to ponder.
Yes, but I wonder to what extent it is a wake up call to those of us who have blithely assumed all our lives that the US was always there for us?
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
we are their lapdog and will get fcuked over
I sincerely hope you're not a dog owner
No dogs for me
..
Looks painful
You have to admire the dedication though. The poor dog must have been at that for ages.
I read that as “You have to admire the defecation though.”
tells me Trump's speech in Davos convinced him the US needs to control Greenland. "We're not going to take Greenland by force, but we need Greenland for very good reasons. If I were Denmark, I would be thinking, if I can work a deal with America and the Greenland people -- we have no desire to change your culture, we have no dtesire to change who you are -- we do need ownership. He's convinced me that if we own this piece of land," he said in @davos .
I've just read Carney's speech which is intriguing in extremis. It is, as many speeches are, long on generalities and short on specifics. Long on platitudes and slogans, short on practical solutions but he's speaking at Davos where the platitude is king.
We aren't all Canada in terms of what we can bring to the table but every "middle" country (by which presumably he excludes the USA and China) has something to offer and it's a brave attempt to redefine bi-lateal and multi-lateral relationships. It's a damning indictment of how western (and other) countries have tried to appease both America and China in recent years.
It also redefines narrow notions of sovereignty which won't go down well with many here.
Whether it comes to be seen as the 2020s equivalent of Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from the winter of 1946 remains to be seen but it's a challenging series of ideas for many countries and a call perhaps to evolve from the post-1945 and even post-1989 mindsets to a more flexible inter-dependency and collaboration for the mid 21st century.
It's a useful prism to look at things, and make political choices. And challenges all our political parties in different ways. Essentially, he's saying we have to move at pace towards food and energy independence, and build up our militaries.
That has implications for the move away from North Sea oil and gas, our approach to agriculture, building up our infrastructure and indigenous industry, and being smart about how we strengthen our military and reduce dependence on the US. It must surely also have implications for our approach to welfare spending and business taxation.
A lot to ponder.
Yes, but I wonder to what extent it is a wake up call to those of us who have blithely assumed all our lives that the US was always there for us?
Comments
If we attribute all of that fall of support to Salisbury, and apply the same fall to Farage's current ~28% polling average, it would take Reform down to ~22-23%.
So it could be a Corbyn on Skripal moment and also still leave him with a significant hard core level of support.
It is tempting, I suggest, for normal, currently bullied countries to say 'Thanks. Let's talk options about Greenland, nothing off the table except war'.
I think that would be an error. The bully has made a mistake (for a bully). The bullied should not let go and should push further and take advantage of Trump's error. Now is the time to emphasise that no discussion is possible on the sovereignty status of Greenland. Full stop. Push back.
The PB outrage bus is full today.
He walked away from UKIP after the referendum when May parked her tanks on his lawn. If Reform fall far enough in the polls and he starts to look and feel like a loser again, will he tough it out to turn things around?
Labour don’t stand to gain because of Starmer’s softly softly approach to Trump.
But Trump may mostly stop talking about it after today. How do you predict what he will do?
That is true, I think.
That is true, I think.
That is true, I think.
That is true, I think.
That is true, I think.
So by Farage’s latest statement, I’m going to say both Starmer and Badenoch are both severely underpriced to do very well in the next election.
I said sometime ago I believed Reform had peaked too early.
But in the meantime Reform are still heading for a pretty stonking result in May and Nige will enjoy presiding over that. The main thing is that the Tories have saved themselves from possible extinction but there's still a fair bit of humble pie to go round.
Tariffs etc are like a tarts knickers; up and down and sometimes off altogether!
Used to be "Bejam" now it's "Greenland"
Who do they think is buying this shit? (apart from Leon, obviously)
Microsoft 2.34%
I suppose not. But it is certainly a moment. and a moment to take advantage of.
@CBSNews
If he does the same rambling nonsense again...
I don't think they're preparing counter-tariffs in that case, though ?
Lights on in the study from so called dawn to dusk.
I suggested £3 Trillion pounds for Rockall, already.
https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/2014016879858262510?s=20
Does Trump still want Greenland? yes
Does he think he's getting it? yes
Is he getting it? No more than he was yesterday...
I've just read Carney's speech which is intriguing in extremis. It is, as many speeches are, long on generalities and short on specifics. Long on platitudes and slogans, short on practical solutions but he's speaking at Davos where the platitude is king.
We aren't all Canada in terms of what we can bring to the table but every "middle" country (by which presumably he excludes the USA and China) has something to offer and it's a brave attempt to redefine bi-lateal and multi-lateral relationships. It's a damning indictment of how western (and other) countries have tried to appease both America and China in recent years.
It also redefines narrow notions of sovereignty which won't go down well with many here.
Whether it comes to be seen as the 2020s equivalent of Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from the winter of 1946 remains to be seen but it's a challenging series of ideas for many countries and a call perhaps to evolve from the post-1945 and even post-1989 mindsets to a more flexible inter-dependency and collaboration for the mid 21st century.
Danish FM Rasmussen says Denmark’s read of Trump’s speech is he still wants Greenland: “What was quite clear after this speech is that the president's (Donald Trump) ambition is intact. Of course, it is positive, in isolation, that it is said that he will not use military force. Of course, that has to be noted.”
Republican
@LindseyGrahamSC
tells me Trump's speech in Davos convinced him the US needs to control Greenland. "We're not going to take Greenland by force, but we need Greenland for very good reasons. If I were Denmark, I would be thinking, if I can work a deal with America and the Greenland people -- we have no desire to change your culture, we have no dtesire to change who you are -- we do need ownership. He's convinced me that if we own this piece of land," he said in
@davos
.
That has implications for the move away from North Sea oil and gas, our approach to agriculture, building up our infrastructure and indigenous industry, and being smart about how we strengthen our military and reduce dependence on the US. It must surely also have implications for our approach to welfare spending and business taxation.
A lot to ponder.
Military force is realistically the only card in his hand that ends up with Greenland as American territory.
It's off the table, for now, likely until he realises how fruitless the diplomatic avenue has been.
Hopefully he gets distracted like an ADHD toddler and moves into the next toy.
https://firstthings.com/holy-foolishness/
Pretty good.
Clear attack lines.
Labour raising taxes on hard working people to pay benefits. Labour punishing business and farming. Labour anti-aspiration.
The Tories, with a Damascene conversion after 2010 - 2024 but she’s saying the right stuff. She seems comfortable on camera and talking to people